Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service v Veevers

Costs of preparing for and attending an inquest may be recoverable as costs of and incidental to subsequent civil proceedings where they are reasonable and proportionate and materially serve the investigation of matters in issue in the claim.

They are not recoverable for investigating liability once liability is no longer in issue. A formal admission is binding unless withdrawn under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 14.1A. An equivocal statement that a defendant will meet a claim may leave liability in issue, particularly where the defendant could have made an unqualified admission but declined to do so. The desirability of representation at an inquest, by itself, does not make the costs recoverable.

The respondent claimed damages following the death of her son, a firefighter employed by the appellant. The appellant admitted liability in the civil proceedings and agreed to pay damages and reasonable costs.

On assessment, the respondent claimed approximately £141,000 for legal preparation for and attendance at the inquest. Deputy District Judge Harris held that those costs were recoverable in principle, subject to detailed assessment. The appellant appealed, arguing that its pre-action correspondence amounted to an admission or an unequivocal commitment to satisfy the claim, so liability was no longer in issue.

The central issue was whether the inquest costs remained costs of and incidental to the civil claim where the prospective defendant had indicated willingness to compensate but had not formally admitted liability.

1. Appeal dismissed. The lower court’s evaluative conclusion that the inquest costs were in principle recoverable disclosed no error justifying appellate interference. The reasonableness and proportionality of the amount remained for detailed assessment.
2. Costs of preparing for and attending an inquest may be recoverable under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where they are reasonable and proportionate and properly incidental to the civil claim. Where they concern establishing liability, they cease to be incidental once liability is no longer in issue.
3. The court must consider all the circumstances. The central question will commonly be whether the prospective defendant admitted liability or otherwise indicated a willingness to satisfy the claim. A formal admission is binding unless withdrawn under rule 14.1A of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
4. The appellant’s letters stated that it would compensate the estate and dependants, but expressly said that it was not in a position to consider an admission of liability. They were therefore not admissions within rule 14.1A. The respondent could not have entered judgment on them under that rule. The letters were relevant, but the Costs Judge was entitled to treat them as less weighty than an unqualified admission and to find that the respondent reasonably perceived a risk that the appellant might resile from its position.
5. The fact that the family wished to be represented at a distressing inquest did not itself justify recovery. It was sufficient that obtaining relevant evidence for the civil claim was a material purpose of attendance. Wider concerns about inequality of arms or funding for inquest representation could not impose those costs inter partes where the inquest did not concern matters in issue in the civil proceedings.
6. The correspondence and the respondent’s acquiescence in not sending a letter of claim formed part of the factual matrix. However, the appellant had not shown that it would have made a formal admission but for that acquiescence. The appeal court therefore found no material flaw in the lower court’s assessment.

• High Court (Commercial Court): appeal from the decision of Deputy District Judge Harris, sitting as Regional Costs Judge for Manchester, dismissed. The finding that the inquest costs were recoverable in principle was upheld, with detailed assessment remaining outstanding.