King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KA-2024-000208 - [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB)

Fecha: 28-Jul-2025

The costs appeal

Background

85.

By ground 4 it is said that the Judge erred by permitting the Defendant to enforce 70% of his costs against the Claimants under CPR r44.16(2)(b).

86.

In light of my conclusion on grounds 1 and 3, ground 4 is presently academic. However, I shall set out my conclusions on ground 4 in case my conclusion on grounds 1 and 3 is disturbed on appeal.

87.

The costs issue turned on an analysis of the extent to which this claim was properly regarded as a claim for personal injuries, in respect of which the claimants note the following:

They both sought (i) basic damages for loss of liberty and distress, (ii) general damages for personal injury, (iii) aggravated damages and exemplary damages, all arising from their arrest and detention.

They both claimed to have suffered a recognised psychiatric injury, supported by expert evidence from a clinical psychologist on which they were granted permission to rely. They disclosed their medical and counselling records and gave written evidence of their injuries.

The defendant put Part 35 questions to the expert psychologist to which she responded, and did not apply to rely on their own expert evidence or to cross-examine her.

The trial was listed to determine all issues of liability and quantum and the relevant evidence was contained in the trial bundle and covered in evidence in chief.

At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel agreed to limit their submissions to liability only in the hope that quantum could be agreed if either claim succeeded.