Case Nos: A2/2003/0018; A2/2002/2326; 
A2/2002/2340; A2/2002/1963;
A2/2002/2413; A22002/2647
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWCA Civ 974
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM OLDHAM COUNTY COURT
Judge Tetlow
District Judge Simpson 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 25th June 2003
Before :

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
LADY JUSTICE HALE
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN

Between :
A2/2003/0018	BRADLEY HOLLINS	Claimant
Appellant	
	- and -		
	REV S H RUSSELL	Defendant
Respondent	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Decision Re Costs of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Drabble QC & David Holland (instructed by Gruber Garratt) for the Appellant and also for the Law Society (intervening in all these appeals)
Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Respondent

And five other appeals whose names and representations appear on the following page
- - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Crown Copyright
 - - - - - - - - - -
A2/2002/2326
Altrincham
County Court
Judge Holman
Deputy District Judge Brooks	MARK EDWARD TICHBAND

And

Mrs B HURDMAN	Appellant/
Claimant

Respondent/Defendant	
Guy Mansfield QC & Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Colemans-CTTS) for the Appellant
Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Respondent

A2/2002/2340
Chester County Court
Judge Barnett
District Judge Wallace

ALISON DUNN	 
   Respondent/Claimant
And

HELEN WARD 
Defendant/Appellant

Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Appellant
Guy Mansfield QC and Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Amelans) for the Respondent

Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Appellant
Guy Mansfield QC & Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Amelans) for the Respondent

A2/2002/1963
Taunton County Court
Judge Cotterill
Deputy District Judge Roach	DORA MAY PRATT

And

DANIEL DAVID MICHAEL BULL 	Claimant/
Respondent

Defendant/
Appellant
	
Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Appellant
Jonathan Dingle (instructed by the Stokes Partnership) for the Respondent

A2/2002/2413
Liverpool County Court
Judge Marshall-Evans QC
District Judge Wright

JOHN JOSEPH WORTH
Claimant/Respondent

And

JAMES JOSEPH MCKENNA
Defendant/Appellant

Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Appellant
Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Irvings) for the Respondent

Ian McLaren QC & Andrew Hogan (instructed by DLA) for the Appellant
Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Irvings) for the Respondent

A2/2002/2647
Supreme Court Costs Office
Master Hurst	GERALD SHARRATT

v

LONDON CENTRAL BUS COMPANY LIMITED
and other cases
THE ACCIDENT GROUP TEST CASES	Claimant/
Respondent

Defendant/
Appellant	
Ian Burnett QC, Deborah Taylor & Benjamin Williams (instructed by Beachcroft Wansboroughs, Carters and Vizards Wyeth) for the Appellants/Defendants
Timothy Charlton QC & Nicholas Bacon (instructed by Rowe Cohen) for the Respondents/Claimants

1.	LORD JUSTICE BROOKE:  In Hollins v Russell we take the view, and this applies to our approach to others of these appeals, that in a matter as weighty as this we should not disallow the costs of arguments which failed unless points were unreasonably taken.  This was a highly complex case that warranted a full investigation by the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly we do not propose to make a discount of costs in relation to costs on an issue basis.  We look at the matter as a whole.
2.	In Hollins v Russell we consider the claimant should be entitled to his costs throughout and that he should receive £7,500 on account of costs, with the rest of the costs to go to detailed assessment.  
3.	In Tichband v Hurdman our approach is the same.  For the same reasons we consider that the claimant should be entitled to his costs throughout and that he should be entitled to indemnity costs from the last date on which the letter of offer could have been accepted.  We are not willing to order as much on account as was requested.  We consider a sum of £20,000 on account of costs as reasonable, with the rest to go to detailed assessment.
4.	In Dunn v Ward, for the same broad reasons I have given, we consider that the claimant should be entitled to her costs and that there should be an award of £20,000 on account of costs and that the rest should go to detailed assessment.  
5.	In relation to Pratt v Bull, we take the view that the costs at district judge level should await the final determination of the assessment.  We set aside the existing order for costs there.  The matter should be decided in due course by the district judge who hears the assessment.  We consider that Mrs Pratt should have her costs before the circuit judge and the Court of Appeal from 6 September because we consider that if the offer made at that time had been accepted all the additional costs would have been saved.
6.	Worth v McKenna was a case in which the district judge made an order granting the claimant no costs at all.  We have directed that the matter go back to the district judge for assessment in accordance with the principles set out in our judgment.  We have considered this case very carefully.  It is true that on one side the defendant succeeded in relation to disclosure issues.  What was at the heart of the matter, however, was the district judge's order that the claimant should receive no costs at all.  In those circumstances we consider the appropriate order is no order as to costs throughout.  The costs before the district judge should be set aside but those costs should await the result of the assessment.  Again, there will be detailed assessment.  
7.	We received representations from counsel who is not at present before us that we may have made a mistake in paragraphs 127 and 128 of our judgment.  We have reconsidered those paragraphs.  We are of the clear view we did not make a mistake and so we do not propose to re‑write our judgment in that respect.  It may be that we would have written it slightly more clearly if the point had been raised earlier, but the judgment stands.
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑