Painting v University of Oxford

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE LONGMORE,Lord Justice Maurice Kay,LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Judgment Date03 February 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWCA Civ 161
Docket NumberB3/2004/2270
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date03 February 2005

COURT OF APPEAL

Before Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Painting
and
University of Oxford

Costs - personal injury claim - costs penalty for exaggeration

Costs penalty for exaggeration

The fact that a claimant was awarded more than the sum paid into court by the defendant in an offer to settle was not the guiding factor in awarding costs where the defendant proved the claimant had exaggerated her personal injury claim.

The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of the University of Oxford from Mr Recorder Morse who, at Walsall County Court on October 4, 2004, had ordered that it should pay all the costs after finding that its employee, the claimant, Yvonne Hazel Painting, had deliberately exaggerated her claim for back injury.

Judgment had been entered at 80 per cent liability against the university and 20 per cent contributory negligence against the claimant for damages to be assessed which came to be heard by Mr Recorder Morse.

The Court of Appeal varied the order of Mr Recorder Morse and ordered that the claimant should pay the costs of the action from February 25, 2004.

Mr Julian Waters for the university; Mr Gabriel Farmer for the employee.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY said that the claimant was pregnant at the time of the accident and had been off work receiving either sick pay or maternity pay without suffering any loss of earnings. Fortunately, there was no complication to her pregnancy and she gave birth about six months later.

Around 2003 video surveillance was taken of the claimant on behalf of the university which showed she was able walk to normally without aid and was able to bend and straighten herself looking at display items in shops.

However, walking with the aid of a stick, she subsequently went to see a consultant surgeon complaining of severe back injury pain. Based on the report of the surgeon she claimed Pounds 500,000.

On February 4, 2004 the university made a payment of Pounds 184,442.91 into court in respect of her 80 per cent claim, but the claimant did not apply to take out the money nor she did make any offer to settle under part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

On February 13, 2004 the university, realising the existence of the surveillance evidence, applied to the court and obtained an order on February 27 to withdraw the sum paid into court save for Pounds 10,000 and contested that the claimant had been exaggerating her claim.

After seeing the surveillance evidence the surgeon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Brit Inns Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Others (Claimant) BDW Trading Ltd (Defendant) J Reddington Ltd (Third Party/Part 20 Defendant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 7 Septiembre 2012
    ...the claimant had to pay the costs thereafter. 40 Hullock is also of assistance because it drew a distinction between cases like Painting v Oxford University [2005] EWCA Civ 161, where exaggeration was the real issue and a claimant who had been shown by surveillance evidence to be exaggera......
  • Marcus v Medway Primary Care Trust and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Junio 2011
    ...court's process in a cynical and dishonest fashion. The judge was influenced by Mulloy v Shell UK Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1272 and Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161, both of which the Court of Appeal considered. Reference was also made to Jackson v Ministry of Defence [2006] E......
  • IAN McGLINN v WALTHAM CONTRACTORS Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • Invalid date
    ...circumstances was to make no order as to costs. 77 Both of these decisions were considered in Yvonne Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161. There the claimant was seeking £400,000 for a back injury sustained at work. The defendant admitted liability and paid into court £10,00......
  • Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 3)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 29 Septiembre 2008
    ...at 25 per cent and would according allow the cross-appeal to that extent.” 57 Clarke and Ward LJJ agreed with that judgment. 58 Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161 was a personal injuries action in which liability was admitted, subject to a 20 per cent deduction for contr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT