I often see arguments by defendants that they should not pay some or all of the claimant’s costs on the basis that the claimant failed on one or more issues. It’s an argument that you may be familiar with in points of dispute.
There are a couple of useful authorities on the point (one being Fox v Foundation Piling) and a recent Hight Court ruling provides some further support for successful claimants. In ABC v Barts Health NHS Trust the defendant failed in it’s argument that the costs in favour of the claimant should not include the costs relating to causation which were said to be “…the vast majority of his pleaded claim”. The claimant had claimed damages of over £1m plus annual payments of £230k but had accepted a part 36 offer of £50k and was awarded his costs in full on the standard basis up to the date of expiry of the part 36 offer.