Author: Howard Tilney
Published: August 22, 2018
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 7 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Earlier in the year, Lord Justice Jackson acknowledged that Court of Appeal guidance on the proportionality test was being called for by the legal profession but noted “The remedy lies in their own hands. The Court of Appeal can only decide the cases, which come before it.”
Good point well made.
Then, in May v Wavell Group Plc, an appeal before the County Court, the lower court judge reached the questionable conclusion that the wording of the rule “Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonable or necessarily incurred”, should be interpreted to mean costs, which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred but not by a very substantial amount!
Rightly, permission was sought to appeal such decision to the Court of Appeal.
A golden opportunity for guidance on the proportionality test, one might think.
Think again.
Permission refused.
Once again, the Judicial left and right hands would seem to be disembodied.
Lawgistics Members can contact the legal team with questions about the legal process.
