A recent costs decision is notable for some bizarre submissions to the court, says Kerry Underwood
In Bailey & Anor v Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd  EWHC 1766 (QB), the court ordered the claimants in a failed product liability case to pay indemnity costs in a claim which pre-dated the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) regime.
The case is notable for one of the most bizarre submissions ever made to a senior court, namely that the defendant should be deprived of most of its costs for failing to apply to have the claim struck out as being weak. This brings a claim in personal injury to a new level of madness.
Such submissions cause great harm to real, injured people and were roundly and rightly dismissed by a high court judge who, equally rightly, ordered the claimants to pay indemnity costs. They create a c...
Continue Reading for less than 70p per day!
This article is part of our subscription-based access. Please pick one of the options below to continue.
Already registered? Login to access premium content