Sughra Sulaman v Axa Insurance plc and Direct Line Insurance plc
11 December 2009
(2010) the Times 25 January
Case Citations: (2010) the Times 25 January
Facts:
The respondent insurers Rs had brought claims against a number of defendants including the appellant A. Rs alleged that the defendants had all participated in a joint design to defraud Rs. The claims against a number of the defendants succeeded but the claim against A was dismissed. However the judge found that A had lied in certain respects in her evidence and (although not part of the common design) had given knowing assistance to brother, another defendant against whom Rs succeeded. The judge therefore awarded A only one third of her costs.
Held:
Dismissing A's appeal to reduce her costs by two thirds (Sedley LJ dissenting), that the judge was not outside the wide area of his discretion. A's complaint that there was insufficient calculation of the time and expense taken up by the lies was misconceived: any such calculation was bound to be speculative and lies maintained and repeated in a complex case were insidious. Further the judge was entitled in his costs order to express his disapproval of the A's lies quite apart from their precise effect of the trial process: Widlake v BAA [2009] EWCA Civ 1256 applied.
Excessive reliance on authorities in this context was to be deprecated. Occasionally a useful statement of principle could be found; but it was not permissible to conclude that because a lying defendant forfeited some of his costs in one case, so it should happen in another.