Akhtar v Boland
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
- SIR STANLEY BURNTON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court held that the partial admissions by the defendant were true admissions, and thus the claim was appropriately allocated to the small claims track. The claimant's appeal was dismissed, but the order for cost payments was set aside. This case addressed the interpretation of financial value and partial admissions under CPR 26.8.
Judgment
Sir Stanley Burnton:
This is my judgment on the issue as to the costs of the appellant’s unsuccessful appeal to this Court against the order of His Honour Judge Platts dismissing his appeal against the order of District Judge Fox refusing to reallocate the claim to the fast track, with the result that it remained in the small claims track. This Court ordered that the issue as to the appellant’s liability for the costs of the successful respondent would be decided on the parties’ written submissions.
The relevant rules of the CPR are CPR 27.14 and 52.9A. CPR 27(14 provides, so far as relevant:
“(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track.
…
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses including those relating to an appeal, except –
It is not suggested that any of the exceptions set out under CPR 27.14(2) in subparagraphs is applicable to this case.
CPR 52.9A provides:
“(1) In any proceedings in which costs recovery is normally limited or excluded at first instance, an appeal court may make an order that the recoverable costs of an appeal will be limited to the extent which the court specifies.
(2) In making such an order the court will have regard to-
(a) the means of both parties;
(b) all the circumstances of the case; and
(c) the need to facilitate access to justice.
(3) if the appeal raises an issue of principle or practice upon which substantial sums may turn, it may not be appropriate to make an order under paragraph (1).”
The current note in the Supreme Court Practice at paragraph 27.14.1.1 states:
“Rule 27.14 (2) applies the “no costs” rule to first appeals to the circuit judge. However, in his review on civil litigation costs Jackson L.J. pointed out that second appeals against small claims decisions in the Court of Appeal are “subject to full costs shifting” (Ch.34 para 3.3). Rule 52.9A was introduced to mitigate that; …”
For the defendant respondent, Mr Andrew Prynne QC points out that permission to appeal was given in this case because it raised an issue of general practical importance, and that although nominally the parties were individuals, in fact they were supported by commercial concerns, a credit hire company on the side of the appellant and an insurance company on the side of the respondent. Moreover, it would be manifestly unfair for the Court to hold that if the appeal had been successful, and