The plaintiff had failed to beat a payment in, but the judge refused the defendants their costs after the payment in because a medical report filed before the payment in had accused the claimant of malingering and he claimed to have gone on to disprove that allegation. It was held that this was insufficient to justify departure from the general rule. The malingering had not been the central issue, and that could be dealt with by apportioning the costs between the issues.
Citations:
Gazette 03-Feb-2000, Times 29-Feb-2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Costs, Personal Injury
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78744