MR PATRICK PLUNKETT MRS LINDA PLUNKETT v The Coal Authority
Decision date: 12 July 2013
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 160 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned entitlement to and assessment of "costs or expenses" payable under section 38 of the Coal Industry Act 1991 and whether the Tribunal could award costs of the reference. The Registrar's detailed assessment reduced the claimants' section 38 claim for legal costs to £165,793.43, and the President ordered the Coal Authority to pay that sum (less prior payments) and the claimants' costs of the reference on the standard basis. The President rejected indemnity costs and applied proportionality in assessing what costs were "reasonably incurred."
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where a claimant succeeds in obtaining reimbursement under section 38, the Tribunal will ordinarily award the claimant its costs of the reference, subject to adjustments for discrete failures or unreasonable conduct; and the concept of "reasonably incurred" costs under section 38 incorporates a proportionality requirement so that disproportionate or unreasonable expenditure may be disallowed on assessment.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The President noted it was arguable that rule 10(6)(b)'s reference to "proceedings ... for injurious affection of land" might be wide enough to include claims under section 38, but declined to decide that point without fuller argument. He also observed that a very large reduction on detailed assessment may in some cases justify disallowing costs of the assessment, but did not lay down a fixed rule.