![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Simmons v Castle & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1288 (10 October 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1288.html Cite as: [2013] Med LR 4, [2013] EMLR 4, [2013] CP Rep 3, [2013] PIQR P2, [2013] 1 WLR 1239, [2012] EWCA Civ 1288, [2013] 1 All ER 334, [2012] 6 Costs LR 1150 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Buy ICLR report: [2013] 1 WLR 1239]
[Help]
OF
APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE DERBY COUNTY COURT
RECORDER BURNS (SITTING IN NORTHAMPTON)
REF: 0DE03953
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
OF
ENGLAND AND WALES
THE MASTER OF
THE ROLLS
and
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF
THE COURT
OF
APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
____________________
CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
DEREK CASTLE |
Respondent |
|
![]() ![]() and – ![]() ![]() and – PERSONAL INJURIES BAR ![]() ![]() |
First Interested Party Second Interested Party Third Interested Party |
____________________
Association of British Insurers
Mr Grahame Aldous QC for the Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers
Mr Charles Cory-Wright QC and Mr Martyn McLeish for the Personal Injuries Bar Association
Hearing date: 25 September 2012
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
The Lord Chief Justice:
The procedural background to this application
"19. The only remaining question is precisely how the increase should be applied. We have concluded that it should apply to all cases where judgment is given after 1 April 2013. It seems to us that, while it can be said that this conclusion does not achieve perfect justice in every case, the same thing can be said about any other answer to the question, particularly in the lightof
a number
of
the forthcoming changes being made to the costs regime pursuant to Sir Rupert's recommendations. Our conclusion has the great merits
of
(i) providing simplicity and clarity, which are both so important in litigation, and (ii) according with the recommendation
of
Sir Rupert, which is consistent with much
of
the rationale
of
the 10% increase in general damages.
20. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to declare that, with effect from 1 April 2013, the proper levelof
general damages for (i) pain, suffering and loss
of
amenity in respect
of
personal injury, (ii) nuisance, (iii) defamation and (iv) all other torts which cause suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals, will be 10% higher than previously. It therefore follows that, if the action now under appeal had been the subject
of
a judgment after 1 April 2013, the proper award
of
general damages would be 10% higher than that agreed in this case, namely £22,000 rather than £20,000".
The relevant statutory provisions relating to costs
"The amendment made by subsection (4) does not prevent a costs order including provision in relation to a success fee payable by a person ("P") under a [CFA] entered into before [1 April 2013] if –
(a) the agreement was entered into specifically for the purposeof
the provision to P
of
advocacy or litigation services in connection with the matter that is the subject
of
the proceedings in which the costs order is made, or
(b) advocacy or litigation services were provided to P under the agreement in connection with that matter before [1 April 2013]."
Section 45 of
LASPO extends the right to charge contingency fees (under what are referred to as "damages-based agreements" as they are referred to) from employment cases to many other types
of
litigation. Section 46
of
LASPO limits the ability
of
successful claimants to recover an ATE premium to a very restricted number
of
cases.
ABI's application: the arguments
The point raised by PIBA: the arguments
Procedural aspects
The reason for the 10% increase in damages
ABI's application: the main issue: CFA claimants
ABI's application: the secondary issue: other claimants
PIBA's point
Conclusion
"Accordingly, we take this opportunity to declare that, with effect from 1 April 2013, the proper levelof
general damages in all civil claims for (i) pain and suffering, (ii) loss
of
amenity, (iii) physical inconvenience and discomfort, (iv) social discredit, or (v) mental distress, will be 10% higher than previously, unless the claimant falls within section 44(6)
of
LASPO. It therefore follows that, if the action now under appeal had been the subject
of
a judgment after 1 April 2013, then (unless the claimant had entered into a CFA before that date) the proper award
of general damages would be 10% higher than that agreed in this case, namely £22,000 rather than £20,000".