On 1st June 1999 Ms Painting, an employee of the University, fell from a ladder whilst trying to take a file from a high shelf. The Claimant sustained injuries to her pelvis, back and head. The University admitted liability and the parties agreed a deduction of 20% for contributory negligence. The Claimant sought damages in the region of £400,000. Prior to the Assessment of Damages hearing the University lodged the sum of £184,442.91 into court pursuant to CPR Part 36. However, shortly after this payment into court, they discovered video surveillance in their possession which greatly undermined the Claimant’s case in relation to both the severity and duration of her injuries. The University, therefore, withdrew all but £10,000 from the monies lodged in the court.
At the assessment of damages hearing the Recorder awarded the sum of £25,331.78 based on a full liability figure of £31, 664.73. The Recorder, although accepting that the claimant had indeed exaggerated her claim, ordered the University to pay the full costs of Ms Painting’s action. He stated that the £10,000 lodged in court was a figure that the claimant could in no circumstances be expected to accept and was unlikely to meet any award beyond one which found the claim to be fraudulent from its inception, and that was never likely to occur.
The University now appealed the decision on the issue of the costs. The Court of Appeal found that the Recorder had failed to address which party was in fact the overall winner. The Court declared that, although Ms Painting had beaten the lodgement, the overall winner was in fact the University. The Recorder had found Ms Painting to have exaggerated her injuries and indeed the two day hearing was mainly concerned with this sole issue. Furthermore, the totality of the judgement was overwhelmingly in favour of the University.
Additionally the Recorder failed to properly weigh the balance between the deliberately misleading claim as against the inadequacy of the payment into court. It was further noted as significant that the claimant had made no attempt to negotiate at any stage of the proceedings or and had not entered a counter proposal to the payment into court. Lord Justice Longmore added that intentional and fraudulent exaggeration is a very important element which needs to be addressed in any assessment of costs and had it not been for this exaggeration there was a strong likelihood that the claim would have settled at an early stage and with modest costs.
The Court of Appeal set aside the order and allowed the claimant her costs up until the time that the university was granted permission to withdraw all but £10,000 of the payment into court. Thereafter the Claimant was ordered to pay the University’s costs.