Abada v Gray and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1997 |
| Date | 25 June 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Hutchison and Lord Justice Mummery
Costs - plaintiff under disability - allocating costs after payment-in
Where a plaintiff under a disability recovered less in damages than a defendant had paid into court, the usual consequences as to payment of the defendant's costs after the date of the payment-in would apply unless the plaintiff's next friend had applied, pursuant to Order 80, rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, for the court to approve acceptance of the payment-in and that approval had been withheld.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal by Richard Abada, acting by his mother as next friend, against the decision of Mr Roger Titheridge, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division on October 25, 1995, ordering him to pay the costs of the defendants, James Gray and the Motor Insurers Bureau, from the date that they paid £100,000 into court in an action in which the plaintiff subsequently recovered £73,250 damages for orthopaedic injuries following a road traffic accident.
The Court of Appeal had also dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the deputy judge's rejection of his claim for damages to be assessed on the basis that the accident and its after effects had caused his schizophrenia.
Mr Christopher Gardner, QC and Mr Simon Brilliant for the plaintiff; Mr Stephen Miller, QC and Miss Margaret Bowron for the defendants.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the plaintiff had submitted that the general practice of the court where a payment-in was not accepted was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sg v Hewitt
...individual litigants and the administration of justice as a whole. This was one of the matters he sought to draw from Abada v Gray and the Motor Insurers Bureau (CA, 25 June 1997, unreported) in which Lord Woolf, then Master of the Rolls, made observations which remain relevant despite havi......
-
The principle of open justice and the judicial duty to give public reasons.
...Crown Court; Exporte Dave [1994] 1 WLR 98, 101-7 (Pill J for Kennedy LJ and Pill J); Coleman v Dunlop Ltd [1998] PIQR 398; Abada v Gray (1997) 40 BMLR 116; Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377, 381-2 (Henry LJ for Henry and Laws LJJ and Hidden (79) Flannery v Halifax Esta......