Thomas Hadley v Mateusz Przybylo

Solicitors’ costs of attending rehabilitation case management meetings in personal injury litigation are not irrecoverable as a generic category. Recoverability depends on whether the work has utility, is relevant to an issue and is attributable to the conduct giving rise to the proceedings.

The statutory expression “costs of and incidental to the proceedings” is wider than work which materially progresses the litigation. Nevertheless, there is no default entitlement to recover the cost of attending every rehabilitation meeting. The necessity, reasonableness and proportionality of each item depend on the circumstances and are matters for costs budgeting or detailed assessment.

The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries in a road traffic accident and brought personal injury proceedings against the defendant, who admitted negligence for the purposes of the action. At a costs-budgeting hearing, the claimant sought future solicitors’ costs for attending rehabilitation case management meetings and meetings with case managers and Court of Protection deputies.

Master McCloud held in [2023] EWHC 1392 (KB) that these attendances did not progress the litigation and were therefore irrecoverable in principle, although her approved figures appeared to include a modest allowance for liaison with professionals. She granted permission for a leapfrog appeal.

After the claim was compromised subject to approval, the costs dispute remained live. The central questions were whether the Master had decided a legal principle, whether she had applied the correct recoverability test and whether attendance at rehabilitation meetings could be recoverable as litigation costs.

1. Appeal allowed. The Master had decided a point of legal principle, rather than merely exercising her discretion over the reasonableness and proportionality of particular expenditure. Her judgment was capable of being cited as excluding an entire category of costs in catastrophic injury litigation. The Court of Appeal therefore had to determine whether that principle was correct.

2. Under section 51(1) of the Senior Court Act 1981, the court may award the costs of and incidental to proceedings. The applicable general test asks whether the work had utility in the action, was relevant to an issue and was attributable to the conduct giving rise to the proceedings. The statutory reference to costs “incidental to” proceedings widens the provision’s scope.

3. The Master’s distinction between costs which were “progressive” and “non-progressive” was potentially misleading. If recoverability depended upon whether work materially progressed the case, incidental expenditure falling within section 51 could wrongly be excluded. Ground 1 was therefore well founded.

4. The solicitors’ costs of attending rehabilitation case management meetings, including appropriate liaison with case managers and deputies, were recoverable in principle. Rehabilitation guidance envisaged possible solicitor involvement, and the evidence indicated that some involvement had benefited both sides. It was consequently wrong to declare that this generic category fell outside litigation costs.

5. Recoverability in principle did not create a default or blanket entitlement to attend every routine meeting. The extent of reasonably necessary involvement, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the resulting cost, always depend on the particular case. The figures claimed appeared very high and remained open to substantial challenge. Ground 2 was allowed subject to that significant qualification.

6. The disputed costs were to be considered on detailed assessment. The defendant remained entitled to advance all arguments about reasonableness and proportionality. The Master’s overall budget figures otherwise remained fair and reasonable.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2024] EWCA Civ 250, the court allowed the appeal. It held that attendance at rehabilitation case management meetings was not an irrecoverable category of costs, while leaving necessity, reasonableness and proportionality for detailed assessment.

2. High Court, King’s Bench Division: Master McCloud held in [2023] EWHC 1392 (KB) that the proposed attendances did not progress the litigation and were irrecoverable in principle. She granted permission for a leapfrog appeal.