SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Maurice Hutson (deceased) & Others |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
Tata Steel UK Ltd (formerly Corus UK Ltd, successors in title and holders of the liabilities of British Steel Corporation and predecessor companies) |
Defendant |
____________________
Matthew Waszak (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 23-25 April 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Senior Costs Judge Rowley:
Introduction
i) Hourly rates;
ii) The recoverability of work done in respect of obtaining evidence of co-workers;
iii) The recoverability of probate costs; and
iv) The recoverability of items claimed as Mail Merge
Background to these proceedings
The central issues
"Individual Costs" are those costs incurred in respect of any individual claimant in relation to matters which are personal to that claimant, excepting any costs incurred because that claim is under consideration for selection as a Test Case or any costs incurred after that claim is selected as a Test Case.
"Common Costs" are all costs other than Individual Costs (and include, for the avoidance of doubt, those categories of costs stated by CPR 46.6(2) to constitute common costs and all costs involved in the negotiation and/or assessment of Common Costs).
(1) Hourly Rates
Grade | Claimed | Offered |
A | £315 | £261 |
B | £278 | £218 |
C | £233 | £178 |
D | £147 | £126 |
How complex are these cases?
"Employment and dust and fume exposure with the defendants; including details of any information and training received regarding dust and fumes and any respiratory protection provided and used (including dates)"
"The Defendants do not admit that they were in breach of duty to any individual Claimant or deceased worker, nor that the injury or death of any individual Claimant or deceased worker was in fact caused by their breach of statutory duty or negligence, but will address these issues in response to the individual claims when these have been pleaded or adequately formulated. The question of the dose of any emission received by a Claimant/Deceased Worker remains strongly in issue and is central to the determination of these claims."
Hourly rates continued
(2) Obtaining the evidence of co-workers
"At this stage it is the view of the Paying Party that collecting evidence which goes to the question of exposure by role or site is work of a common nature. As such, the associated costs should be disallowed in this assessment of the individual costs payable. In the circumstances, the Court will be invited to disallow the items in the left-hand column."
"Claimants would prefer to avoid having to prove a case in respect of each individual workman, [but] they do not have that luxury, as the pleadings have made clear. The Defendant has repeatedly emphasised that: a) Dose in respect of each individual claimant/worker is key and must be proved; and b) matters such as variations between different sites and different time periods in plant, protective equipment and practices means that no "one size fits all approach can be adopted." Even if it were correct (and it is not) that readings at one site could be applied without adjustment to another, that does not deal with the importance of the claimant proving exactly where he worked, how long, with what protection and under what practices."
Decision on co-worker evidence
(3) The recoverability of probate costs
"The Paying Party refers to the case of Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd [2016] EWHC 54 (QB) (25 January 2016) and submits that the costs of obtaining a Grant of Probate are not recoverable on an inter partes basis."
(4) "MailMerge"