DN (by his father and litigation friend RN) v London Borough of Greenwich
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BROOKE |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 53 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B3/2004/0099 |
| Date | 25 January 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE OVEREND)
Lord Justice Brooke
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Lord Justice May
Sir Martin Nourse
B3/2004/0099
MR ANDREW FAULKS QC AND MR ANDREW WARNOCK (instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR ROGER TER HAAR QC AND MR ANDREW PHILLIPS (instructed by Messrs Teacher Stern Selby) Appeared on behalf of the Respondent
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
There are three issues we have to determine: (i) the costs in the court below; (ii) the costs of the appeal; and (iii) the application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords. So far as the first is concerned, a significant amount of time was spent in the court below in exploring the allegations of negligence against the local educational authority and against Mr Radcliffe, which in due course failed. Mr Ter Haar has said, rightly, that a certain amount of this evidence was necessary in any event on the issues of causation. We take the view that some allowance has to be made against the costs because of these additional issues on which the claimant failed. Half of the reason that the judge gave for making an order that the defendants had to pay all their costs were, in our judgment, wrong in that he was critical of the fact that the defendants did not have an expert of their own and ought to have conceded liability in this very difficult case. Doing the best we can, we consider that the appropriate order for costs in the court below is that the defendants should pay the claimant 75 per cent of his costs.
So far as the appeal is concerned, this was an extremely large claim. Although the defendants failed on issues of liability, they succeeded significantly in relation to issues of causation. In our judgment, while taking into account the submissions which Mr Ter Haar has made about the way the defendants could have protected themselves and thereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial