Painting v University of Oxford: CA 3 Feb 2005

The claimant had sought damages for personal injuries, namely injury to her back. Though she was found to have exaggerated her claim, she still recovered more than had been paid in. The defendant appealed a costs order based solely on the size of the recovery.
Held: When a claimant exaggerated her claim, the question of costs was not to be settled only by the size of the award as against the payment in. Such cases were fact sensitive. The court had a discretion. The defendant said it was in an impossible position, but this was not true. It could have increased the size of its payment in. The issue at trial had however been substantially as to the existence of the exaggeration. The defendant was in fact the winner of the issues played out before the court, and with some reluctance the costs award was altered.
Longmore LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
Times 15-Feb-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 161, [2005] PIQR Q5, [2005] 3 Costs LR 394
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHall and others v Stone CA 18-Dec-2007
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .
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 . .
CitedGregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance CA 9-Feb-2010
gregson_husseinCA2010
The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.223216