Jackson v Ministry of Defence: CA 12 Jan 2006

andpound;150,000 was paid into court but the claimant recovered andpound;155,000 and the judge ordered the defendant to pay 75% of the claimant’s costs. The defendant appealed. The judge had decided that when the claimant gave his evidence there was a significant degree of exaggeration.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The defendant was the successful party because the whole trial was about whether the claimant had exaggerated his claim, and the defendant had had opportunities to manage the result by payments into court.
Tuckey LJ said: ‘Persuasively and persistently though these submissions were put, I do not accept them. The claimant was successful in the sense that he established a claim for substantial damages and beat the payment into court, albeit by a small margin. The defendant was perfectly able to protect itself against the fact that it faced an exaggerated claim. As most defendants do in such circumstances, it had access to experienced lawyers and, if necessary, experts to evaluate the strength of the claim it faced. It could with the benefit of such advice – and perhaps with the benefit of hindsight in this case should have – made an earlier Part 36 payment into court, and certainly could have increased that payment into court by making a further payment after the unsuccessful settlement meeting. The judge took into account the fact that the claimant had only just beaten the payment in which had been made, as I have already said. What is more, the judge made it clear that it was open to the defendant to challenge specific items relating to the abandoned claims, such as the costs of the experts which were not relied on at trial, at the detailed assessment, where of course the claimant will only be able to recover costs which were reasonably incurred . . The reduction which the judge made – and the reduction which we can anticipate the costs judge is likely to make – must act as a considerable disincentive to claimants and their advisers against making exaggerated claims. The case of Painting is, as Miss Griffiths accepted, an exceptional case where the claimant persisted in a claim for andpound;400,000 at trial and was awarded about andpound;25,000 at the end of the process.’


Tuckey LJ, Keene LJ, Wilson LJ


[2006] EWCA Civ 46




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWidlake v BAA Ltd CA 23-Nov-2009
The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238305