Hart & Anor v Large & Ors

Anonymity requires strict justification because it derogates from open justice. Personal concerns about internet searches were insufficient, although omitting a property address did not compromise open justice.

Where damages are reduced by recovery from co-defendants who are not the relevant opposite party, interest is calculated on the net judgment sum. The appropriate rate is assessed broadly to provide fair compensation, taking account of the claimant’s general characteristics and relevant economic circumstances. Litigation delay justifies reducing interest only where, in all the circumstances, the claimant acted unreasonably. Costs may be reduced broadly to reflect issues on which the successful party failed.

The judgment determined consequential matters following the substantive trial of the Harts’ professional negligence claim concerning a survey of their home. The claimants sought anonymity, interest on the gross damages before credit for sums received from the other defendants, interest at 4.5 per cent, full costs, an interim costs payment, permission to appeal and a stay.

The court considered the application of CPR provisions governing anonymity, interest, costs and permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the parties’ identities or property address should be withheld, the proper interest base, rate and period, the appropriate costs order, and whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Anonymity. Under CPR r 39.2(4), non-disclosure is mandatory only where necessary both for the proper administration of justice and to protect the relevant interests. The request to anonymise the claimants was refused. The property address could be omitted because that did not involve anonymity or offend open justice.
2. Interest. Applying the reasoning in I.M. Properties Plc v Cape & Dalgleish [1999] Q.B. 297, the £376,000 recovered from the other defendants represented avoided loss. Interest was therefore calculated on the net judgment sum of £374,000, rather than £750,000. The court awarded simple interest under section 35A(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 at 4.5 per cent. The rate was assessed broadly, with regard to fair compensation, the claimants’ general characteristics, the 2011 basis of the damages assessment, inflation and the reduced interest base. No reduction was made for delay because, in the circumstances, it would not have been just.
3. Costs. The defendants’ settlement offers evidenced reasonable attempts to settle, so costs remained on the standard basis. Although the claimants succeeded overall, substantial costs related to issues on which they failed or which they abandoned. Their recoverable costs were therefore reduced by 15 per cent, giving recovery of 85 per cent.
4. Other orders. The court declined to vary approved costs budgets, leaving the issues to the Costs Judge. It ordered an interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs, plus £7,500 for the consequential hearing. Permission to appeal was granted only on ground c, concerning valuation of damages on the findings made. The remaining grounds were not arguable. A time-limited stay was granted pending a formal application supported by updated information.