Azim Shahid Nizami and London Clubs Management Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice McKinnon |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2577 (QB) |
| Date | 30 November 2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ02X01143 |
[2004] EWHC 2577 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
The Honourable Mr Justice McKinnon
Case No: HQ02X01143
MR. ORIEL HINDS (instructed by C.M.Atif and Co.,) for the Claimant
MR. MARK JAMES (instructed by Badhams Law) for the Defendant
Hearing dates : 21 st September 2004
Approved Judgment
The Hon. Mr. Justice McKinnon
On the 30 th April, 2004 judgment was handed down in this action assessing damages due to the Claimant in the sum of £26,499.10. Interest had to be added to that sum to make the total award £30,726.95
Nearly 16 months earlier on 2 nd January 2003, the Defendant paid into Court £38,399.46: this was made up of £5,000 plus a certificate of recoverable benefits that withheld (pursuant to CPR 36.23 (3)) a total of £33,399.46 in recoverable benefits (invalidity benefit was £19,952.65 and income support was £13,446.81).
All the above figures are agreed. On the face of it, it is not surprising that the Defendant contends (a) that the Claimant has failed to "beat" the payment into Court within CPR 36.20(1) and (b) that it would not be unjust to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs from 23 rd January 2003, that being the latest date on which the payment into Court could have been accepted without needing the permission of the Court ( CPR 36.20(2)). It is common ground that the Defendant should pay the Claimant's costs up to and including 23 rd January 2003.
The sole point taken by Mr. Hinds on behalf of the Claimant is that the payment on 2 nd January 2003 of £38, 399.46 did not take account of the loss of pension rights claim to July 2003 awarded in my judgment in the sum of £8,853.74, with the result that the Claimant could be regarded as £862.34 better off under my judgment than if he had accepted the Part 36 payment. I pay tribute to Mr. Mark James Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Defendant which is a model of clarity and completeness. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments or calculations set out in that excellent Skeleton Argument.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Mark James presents two arguments to defeat Mr. Hinds submissions. They are:
the loss of pension claim as calculated and awarded in my judgment, in truth, amounted to no more than "compensation for earnings lost" within column 1 of Schedule 2 of the 1997 Act with the result that the Claimant cannot be regarded as having beaten the payment in.
if that is not correct and the pension rights claim is not "compensation for earnings lost" and has to be ring-fenced (within the principle in Williams –v—Devon County Council [2003]EWCA Civ. 65 [2003] P.I.Q.R.4) then, although the Claimant may thus be regarded as £826.34 better off under my judgment than if he had accepted the Part 36 payment, Mr. Mark James submits that, in the light of seven separate matters hereinafter set out, the Court should conclude that the just order is that the Claimant should pay at least some part of the Defendant's costs. The seven separate matters are:-
i) the Claimant would only have beaten the Part 36 payment by reason of a late (19 December 2003) amendment of his claim; and,
ii) the Claimant had spent nearly 16 months litigating to obtain £862.34 (17.25%) more in his hand than he would have obtained had he accepted the Part 36 payment (£5,000); and,
iii) the Claimant had his original claim (12 July 2002) for loss of earnings in the sum of £321,789.71 (on a full liability basis) reduced to £52,455 (before contributory negligence). In other words, the Claimant recovered just 16.30% of his original claim for loss of earnings (before contributory negligence); and,
iv) the Claimant had his...
To continue reading
Request your trial