Alleged Exaggeration of Claim

Useful Articles > Alleged Exaggeration of Claim (print this page )

Jackson  -v-  MoD

This case involved a Claimant who in 1998 was a 17 year old recruit into the Royal Engineers. 

He suffered a serious injury to his right knee whilst jumping from a bridge into a river.  He had been left with some problems with his knee and was discharged as medically unfit from the Army. 

Proceedings were issued in 2001 and after a split trial had been ordered, liability was admitted and judgment was entered for damages to be assessed. 

The Claimant’s first Schedule of Loss claimed more than £1,000,000.00.  The Defendant took issue with much of the claim and eventually the Claimant’s final Schedule of Loss, which was served about a year later, claimed approximately £240,000.00. 

The Claimant’s claims for future loss of earnings, apart from his claim for handicap on the labour market and his claim for special accommodation, had been abandoned.  

In February 2005 the Defendant made a Part 36 payment into Court of £150,00.00.  The parties were ordered to attend a pre-trial joint settlement meeting at which no agreement was reached. 

At trial the Claimant was awarded £155,000.00 and the Defendant was ordered to pay 75% of the Claimant’s costs.  The Defendant appealed saying that in reality it had been a successful party and that the Costs Order did not take account of this.  The Defendant also said that the 25% reduction in the Claimant’s costs did not reflect the fact that the Defendant had itself incurred costs incurred in meeting a wholly exaggerated claim.

The Court of Appeal held that as the Claimant had successfully recovered substantial damages and had beaten the payment into Court that there should be no further reduction on the Claimant’s recoverable costs. 

The Court indicated that the Defendant had been perfectly able to protect itself and could have made an earlier Part 36 payment into Court and could have made a further payment into Court after the unsuccessful settlement meeting. 

The Court of Appeal took account that the Trial Judge had only awarded the Claimant 75% of his costs at least in part because he had only just beaten the payment into Court.  The Court of Appeal also noted that it was open to the Defendant to challenge specific items relating to the abandoned claims on the Detailed Assessment. 

This is another case which shows the Court’s attitude to “exaggerated” claims and follows another Court of Appeal case, Painting v University of Oxford where the Court deprived the Claimant of most of her costs because the claim had been exaggerated.  

The difference with Painting was perhaps that the Court had actually made a finding that the case had been deliberately exaggerated which did not appear to be the case in Jackson.