Costs Budget Comparison Not Intrinsically Irrelevant

Woolley v Ministry of Justice involved a personal injury claim brought by Mr Woolley against the Ministry of Justice following an assault he suffered while a remand prisoner at HMP Birmingham on 4 January 2019. The key issues in dispute related to the judge’s decision at a costs and case management hearing to significantly reduce Mr Woolley’s estimated costs budget after concluding it was disproportionate.

The relevant events leading up to the judgment were:

• 4 January 2019 – Mr Woolley assaulted by other prisoners at HMP Birmingham where he was on remand, suffering physical and psychiatric injuries
• December 2021 – Mr Woolley brought a personal injury claim against the Ministry of Justice alleging failure to protect him from the assault
• May 2023 – Parties exchanged costs budgets – Mr Woolley claimed £121,886; Ministry of Justice budget was £58,984
• 2 June 2023 – At a Case Management Conference, the judge reduced Mr Woolley’s budget to £26,225 after finding it disproportionate

The key issues on Appeal were:

• Whether the judge was wrong to refuse to consider the Ministry of Justice’s agreed budget when assessing proportionality of Mr Woolley’s budget
• Whether the approved budgets left Mr Woolley at a significant disadvantage compared to the Ministry of Justice’s greater funding

Mr Woolley argued the judge erred in law by not considering the Ministry’s agreed budget as a relevant benchmark when determining proportionality of his figures. He also contended the unequal budgets failed to keep the parties on an equal footing.

The Ministry of Justice submitted budget comparisons were of limited worth and it was for the judge to assess proportionality. The approved figures did not prevent Mr Woolley accessing justice.

Decision

The judge, Mr Justice Kerr, found that the lower court judge, HHJ Baucher, erred in law by refusing to consider the defendant Ministry of Justice’s agreed costs budget when assessing the proportionality of the claimant’s proposed budget.

“The judge thereby disregarded a relevant consideration, as the claimant asserts in the first ground of appeal. The defendant’s budget was not intrinsically irrelevant; “some comparison between budgets may be informative”, as was said in Various Claimants v. Scott Fowler Solicitors. The defendant’s budget did not become irrelevant merely because it was agreed or because the judge may have disagreed with the reasonableness of the amounts in it. Mr Grütters was entitled to make submissions about it, for what they were worth, and was prevented from doing so.” [64]

The judge also heavily criticised the language used by HHJ Baucher in addressing the claimant’s counsel, Mr Grütters, finding it regrettable and indefensible:

“It was, in my judgment, a serious irregularity because of the language used by the judge when addressing Mr Grütters on three occasions: when she used his word “imagine”; when she used his word “strange”, twice; and when she suggested he was not familiar with the rules. The language used was indefensible.” [66]

Ultimately, the judge determined that the decision should be remitted back for reconsideration by another judge due to the serious procedural irregularities rendering the original decision unjust:

“The just solution is, in my judgment, to remit the whole of the claimant’s costs budget back to the county court for reconsideration by another judge, unless the amount of that budget is agreed. If it is not agreed within 14 days of the court’s order in this appeal, the matter should be relisted in the county court.” [80]