Qaisar Mehmood v Harry Mayor

An informal disclosure request should ordinarily be made by application notice supported by evidence where the categories sought, relevance and procedural basis are unclear. In costs management, the court must consider whether the case can be conducted justly and at proportionate cost. Budget figures are assessed holistically and prospectively within the range of reasonable and proportionate costs, rather than by detailed assessment in advance. The court should consider the matters in CPR 44.3(5) and CPR 44.5(3), including sums at stake, complexity, conduct, importance, skill and responsibility, time, location, vulnerability and additional work. The parties’ budgets may inform the assessment, but the court must independently determine appropriate figures for each phase.

The claimant, a protected party represented by his litigation friend, pursued a substantial-value personal injury claim against the defendant. The defendant informally sought disclosure concerning the claimant’s dealings with accountants, relying on its possible relevance to capacity, financial loss and fundamental dishonesty. The court also had to undertake further costs management after substantial revisions to both parties’ budgets.

The issues were whether the disclosure request should be dealt with informally and what future costs were reasonable and proportionate for the different phases of the litigation.

1. Disclosure application. The court declined to determine the disclosure request substantively at the hearing. The request was insufficiently defined as to the documents sought, its relevance to fundamental dishonesty or the financial claim, and its relationship with information already provided and proposed accountancy evidence. Fairness and informed decision-making required an application notice and evidence in support. The matter was therefore not dealt with substantively on an informal basis.
2. Costs management. Under CPR 3.15(2), a costs management order was required because the court was not satisfied that the case could be conducted justly and at proportionate cost without one. In revising budgets, the court was not conducting a detailed assessment in advance. Under paragraph 12 of Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3D, it was required to consider whether the figures fell within the range of reasonable and proportionate costs.
3. The court applied a holistic assessment to each phase, considering the matters identified in CPR 44.3 and CPR 44.4, including the sums in issue, complexity, conduct, importance, skill and responsibility, time, location, vulnerability and additional work. The budgets of both parties were relevant, but their weight was a matter for the court.
4. The allegations of fundamental dishonesty, the substantial value and length of the trial, extensive surveillance evidence, expert evidence, translation requirements and the claimant’s asserted vulnerability justified costs above those ordinarily allowed in a straightforward personal injury claim. They did not justify the claimant’s proposed figures in full. A two-counsel approach was reasonable, but the junior counsel was to be distinctly junior and excessive senior fee-earner work and rates were reduced.
5. The court approved revised figures for the relevant phases, including £27,000 for issue and statements of case, £13,800 for further disclosure, £15,000 for pre-trial review, £150,000 for trial preparation, £244,000 for trial and £52,500 for alternative dispute resolution. The informal disclosure application was left for proper determination if advanced by application notice and supporting evidence.