Description
Where the claimant had been successful in his claim but had failed on one particular issue relating to causation it was appropriate to order a percentage reduction in costs rather than to make an issue-based costs order.
The claimant was injured when he landed at the bottom of a fireman's pole in a seated position. His primary submission was that inadequate instructions had been given to him. He succeeded on that point. In addition, he argued that the defendant had failed to provide an adequate amount of wood chip or bark to soften the impact, which was causative of the injury. The Court held that the defendant was in breach of its duty by providing inadequate wood chip, but that the claimant had failed to establish the causative connection between the defendant's breach and the injury.
The starting point for assessment of costs was Part 36. The claimant had achieved a result more advantageous than his offer and was entitled to his costs. CPR 44.3 required the Court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including whether a party had been partly successful. It was right in the instant case to depart to some extent from the rule that costs followed the event but it was not appropriate to require a costs judge to make an issue-based costs order. Such orders were discouraged by the CPR and would lead to even more cost being incurred. A percentage reduction was appropriate.
