(1) LINDA WOODINGS (2) PAULINE ABDALLA (3) LESLEY NOAKES (4) RANJIT KAUR SINGH (5) KATHLEEN RILEY v BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (2003)

Mayor's & City of London County Court (HH Judge Marr-Johnson) 7/2/2003

CIVIL PROCEDURE - CPR - PERSONAL INJURY

Claimants whose personal injury claims for acoustic shock had been settled for less than £1,000 were entitled to have their assessed on the standard basis where the claims would have been allocated to the multi-track because of the extent of technical and medical evidence required, and where the defendants had acted unreasonably in dealing with the claims.

Claims for costs to be assessed on the standard basis following the settlement of the claimants' personal injury claims against the defendant employer. Each of the five claimants had been required to wear a headset or an ear piece in the course of their work. Each alleged that they had suffered acoustic shock from the equipment provided by the defendant, in the form of sudden aural exposure to loud and shrill electronic noise through the apparatus being worn. In consequence each suffered symptoms including earache, auditory interference and vertigo. All five cases were settled by the defendants shortly after the service of a defence for sums ranging between £500 and £750. In four of the cases the claimants accepted that their claim for damages for personal injury was not worth more than £1,000 and fell therefore on the face of things within the scope of the small claims track CPR Rule 26.6(1)(a)(ii) so that their recovery of costs was restricted to those permitted by CPR 27.14. The claimants asserted that they ought to be awarded cost's generally in the discretion of the court on the standard basis on the grounds that: (i) if their cases had not settled, they would almost certainly have been allocated to the multi-track or alternatively the fast track because complicated medical and technical evidence would have been required if causation had been disputed; and (ii) that even if their cases were suitable for allocation to the small claims track, the defendants ought to have been more co-operative in reaching a solution to the expensive problem of proving causation.

HELD: (1) Liability had neither been admitted or denied and the most likely outcome, had they been contested, was that the court would have made an order that the cases be tried together on the issue of liability and the cases would have been allocated to the multi-track because of the extent of the technical and medical evidence required. (2) The defendants had never co-operated in seeking to find an economical solution to the claimant's problem. Considerable expense could have been spared if the defendants had dealt with the claims in a more rational manner. The defendants had acted unreasonably in this respect and would be ordered to pay costson the standard basis pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(d). (3) The claimant's should not be confined by small claims track limitations in any assessment of their costs but they should be entitled to their reasonable costs in accordance with the principles set out in CPR 44.3

Claim allowed.

Ben Williams for the claimants. Nigel Lewers for the defendant.