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

In his judgment on costs dated 20 January 2025, the Judge referred to paragraph [57] of Brown.

Healsonoted at [27] that, if they had succeeded, the personal injury and the non-personal injury elements of the claim would have had broadly similar values, and at [28] that both types of loss depended on the same facts and, as regards liability, on the same evidence.

The Judge held:

“29.

In my judgment this is not a personal injury case ‘in the round’ for the following reasons:

i.

Although the personal injury claim is dependent upon the same evidence as the non-personal injury claims the case is very different from ABC and Afriye and much more similar to Jeffreys v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] 1 WLR 3633. Although this pre-dated the Court of Appeal decision in Brown, I do not read Coulson LJ as saying that it was wrong or inconsistent although it was cited in his judgment. The facts in that case were very different and the trial judge was firm in his view that the personal injury claim was ancillary to the other claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment and misfeasance, the latter being the essence of the claim.

ii.

The Claimants’ case against the officers involved in the arrest and detention was straightforward. It was alleged by the First Claimant that her arrest and detention had been accompanied by “humiliating circumstances” and that the arresting officers had been “high-handed, insulting, malicious”. In cross-examination she said that there was a conspiracy to do her down because she was a police officer. I should say that she later accepted that she was not suggesting that as an officer she should be treated differently from any other suspect.

iii.

The claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment entitled the Claimants to a jury trial, which they elected for.

iv.

There was little or no mention of the personal injury aspect of the claims during the trial and the preparation for trial, which focussed on the actions of the police witnesses.

v.

Although the damages which were likely to have been awarded if the Claimants had succeeded were of a similar level for the personal injury and non-personal injury claims, it is the nature of claims for wrongful arrest and detention which can give rise to low levels of damages. That is because these claims are usually brought in order to obtain formal recognition that the police have behaved unlawfully and damages is a less important motivation for most claimants.”

The costs judgment continued:

“30.

Having concluded that this is not “in the round” a personal injury claim the court has to decide whether to exercise its discretion to permit enforcement of the Defendant’s costs order and, if so, to what extent. I am satisfied that discretion should be exercised to arrive at a “costs neutral” result as envisaged by Coulson LJ. 90% is too high as it does not take into account that there weas a real personal injury claim supported by expert evidence. Mr. Clemens said that in his experience orders were regularly made of 70% and this is what happened in Jeffries. In my judgment that is a just and fair apportionment in this case.”