Claimant in personal injury case against council penalised over “unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious” approach to estimated costs

Master Thornett has ordered a 35% reduction in the claimed budget of a man who suffered an accident while working for Thurrock Council.

He held a costs management hearing in the High Court in July in the case of Peter Jenkins, who certifies his damages exceed £200,000 from a significant injury to his right foot and ankle while working as a refuse collector.

Thurrock admitted liability in March 2021 and the provisional schedule of loss pursues claims for income, treatment and therapies, care and assistance and accommodation adaptation.

Master Thornett said Mr Jenkins’ case was towards the lower end of claims for costs managed in the High Court and entirely typical of those managed in the District Registries. Mr Jenkins’ latest counter offer was £406,176.32.

“The point here being that, at least according to the statements of case, there is nothing obviously to suggest why this case should see significantly high estimated legal costs,” he said.

“Neither did the case management directions engaged through to trial engage anything more (or less) than a typical approach to budgeting.

“In seeking substantial future legal costs, the claimant therefore had a reasonably high burden to explain and justify his position at the costs management hearing.”

Master Thornett noted that at the July hearing, “the court was entirely satisfied that the claimant was maintaining an unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious budget, having regard to the requirements of the case.

“Despite the claimant having attempted to offer slightly reduced figures, the court found that the defendant’s submissions as to proportionality remained far closer to what, on any objective terms, could be submitted as within a reasonable range.”

He said Mr Jenkins had “presented and maintained an unrealistic and disproportionate approach to his estimated costs in the context of the demands and requirements of this case”.

Master Thornett said the court was entitled to take a rounded overview when considering the costs of the budgeting exercise, and “parties are not in principle immune from costs considerations in costs management hearings”.

Mark Smulian