England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Patterson v Cape Darlington & Ors [2001] EWHC 9005 (Costs) (15 May 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2001/9005.html
Cite as: [2001] EWHC 9005 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 

 No.4 of 2001

Patterson v Cape Darlington and 15 other Defendants
May 2001
Mr Justice Astill sitting with Assessors

This was an appeal by the sixteen Defendants. The Claimant had brought a claim for damages for personal injuries, namely, an asbestosis related disease sustained in consequence of his employment with some or all of the Defendants. The Claimant lived and worked in Liverpool. He was a member of the General and Municiple Boilerman’s Union and of the Liverpool & District Victims of Asbestos Support Group. This group advised him to instruct a London firm of solicitors to act for him in connection with his claim. This he did and the proceedings were brought in the Central London County Court. The case was settled.

At the detailed assessment hearing of the Claimant’s Bill of Costs, the Defendants representatives challenged the use of London Solicitors and submitted that the Claimant should have instructed Liverpool solicitors and that the hourly rate should be adjusted accordingly.

The Defendants had instructed solicitors in the North East of England.

It was accepted by Counsel for both sides that an appeal from the Master is limited to a review of his decision and that on appeal it had to be shown by the Appellant that the Costs Judge’s decision was either wrong in law or was unreasonable.

The Judge held that on the facts of this case the decision was not wrong in law, and he did not consider it unreasonable. He relied to a great extent on the fact that the Claimant had been advised by both his Union and the Liverpool & District Victims of Asbestosis Support Group to use a particular firm of solicitors whose offices were in London. The Judge stressed that on the facts of this case he could not find that the decision of the Master was either wrong in law or that it was unreasonable.

The Judgment was given in chambers and neither side had requested transcripts of the Judgment.