Challenging unreasonably incurred court fees

The increases in court fees over the last few years have added significant sums to insurers’ indemnity spend. There are a number of ways in which court fees can be challenged and in this issue we provide one such example.  A common behaviour often seen and challenged by Keoghs is claimant solicitors bringing proceedings on an individual basis for linked claimants, as opposed to issuing these under the same proceedings. This results in a much larger expenditure for insurers.

Separate proceedings result in a duplication of issue fees and of work throughout the substantive claim, including the costs of separate detailed assessment proceedings.  This is to the detriment of not only the defendant, but also the court.

At a recent costs hearing before District Judge Etherington in Stoke on Trent County Court (14 September 2016), Keoghs successfully argued in the matter of Tahir & 4 others v Liverpool Victoria Insurance PLC that five individual minors should have been issued together.

Each of the individual matters had proceeded through the RTA portal with three different litigation friends. Quantum had been agreed at Stage 2 for three which required approval and a contested Stage 3 hearing was required for two.

Separate Part 8 proceedings were issued for all five claimants, at a cost of £1,400 in court fees. An infant settlement hearing was listed for all five claimants; however, three were later adjourned due to personal circumstances. Quantum was approved for those claimants in attendance and costs were ordered to be dealt with by way of assessment proceedings failing agreement.

Keoghs attended the second infant settlement hearing to dispute the separate proceedings. At this hearing, two claimants’ damages were approved however one was adjourned. Costs were reserved, to be dealt with at the concluding hearing.

In the final hearing, the court adjudicated that all five of the claims ought to have been issued on the same claim form, despite the different circumstances for each claimant. Keoghs was therefore successful and an order was made accordingly for the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs summarily assessed in the sum of £750.

The importance of such a decision is the saving for defendant insurers. Whilst costs may be fixed in essence, there are still significant savings to be made within these regimes.