Michael Briley & Ors v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust & Ors

Costs incurred in preparing for and attending pre-inquest reviews may be recoverable as costs incidental to a civil claim arising from a death. The governing questions are whether the work was of use and service in the claim, relevant to issues in it, attributable to the opposing party’s conduct, and reasonable and proportionate. The assessment is fact-specific. The importance of the inquest, the complexity and sensitivity of the issues, disclosure obtained, the parties’ conduct, and the contribution of the process to settlement may all be relevant. A claimant’s choice of specialist solicitors may be objectively reasonable even where the solicitors are based outside the claimant’s locality. Guideline Hourly Rates are not automatically determinative, particularly in specialised human-rights and mental-health cases.

The claim arose from the death of Amanda Briley following a prolonged period in a mental-health unit. Her family brought civil claims involving negligence, human-rights breaches and disability discrimination. The substantive claims settled for £65,000, with admissions of liability, an apology and a commitment to learn lessons.

The assessment concerned two preliminary issues: whether the solicitors’ hourly rates were reasonable and whether costs incurred in preparing for and attending two pre-inquest review hearings were recoverable. The defendants argued that the work was unnecessary, disproportionate and insufficiently connected with the settled civil claim. The claimants relied on the disclosure, evidence and clarification of liability issues obtained through the inquest process.

1. Hourly rates. It was objectively reasonable for the claimants to instruct Bhatt Murphy. The firm had specialist expertise and a national reputation in cases involving deaths in mental-health custody, and its recommendation by INQUEST was a factor on which the claimants were entitled to rely under Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters [1988] 1 WLR 132. Locality was not decisive, particularly as the defendants produced no evidence that a suitably experienced local firm would have charged less.
2. The case was not merely a clinical-negligence claim. It involved human-rights and Equality Act issues, complex facts, extensive documentation, multiple defendants and significant public-interest concerns. Those matters justified the claimed rates. Applying the broad and pragmatic approach described in PLK and Others (Costs) [2020] EWHC B28 (Costs), the claimed rates were allowed.
3. Pre-inquest review costs. The costs were potentially recoverable under the principles in In re Gibson’s Settlement Trusts [1981] Ch 179. They were of use and service in the civil claim, relevant to issues including causation, the extent of the defendants’ failings, disclosure and the human-rights claims, and attributable to the defendants’ conduct.
4. Fullick & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) confirmed that inquest costs may be recoverable where reasonably necessary and proportionate to the civil claim. This case involved substantial outstanding disclosure, disputed issues and little agreement. The pre-inquest reviews materially advanced the civil claim and contributed to its settlement.
5. The court allowed recovery in principle of the costs of attending and preparing for the two pre-inquest reviews, including attendance by the conducting solicitor and junior counsel. Any detailed reductions could be considered at a later line-item assessment. The costs were held to be reasonable, proportionate and of use and benefit to the civil claim.

First-instance costs assessment; no appellate history is stated in the judgment.