Senada Ziga & Ors v Darren Stuart Yarnold & Ors

Decision date: 7 May 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 181 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

The appeal concerned two FTT costs determinations in which Dr Razoq, a litigant in person and practising locum consultant, sought recovery of his time at his locum rate but was limited to £19/hr for lack of proved financial loss. The Upper Tribunal held the costs judge erred in law by failing to appraise uncontradicted evidence that the hours spent on the litigation prevented remunerative locum work, and set aside the decision on hourly rate for reassessment. The question of applying the CPR r.46.5(2) two‑thirds cap remains for consideration if loss is established.

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: high

A costs judge must consider and make findings on uncontradicted evidence of financial loss relied on by a litigant in person rather than focussing only on what documentary evidence was not produced; where the judge accepts the time spent and there is no challenge to assertions that those hours precluded remunerative work, that may justify finding financial loss and a higher hourly rate.

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 tribunal noted that FTT rules permit admissibility and consideration of witness statements not in CPR form (rule 18(6)(a)) and that the FTT may waive procedural formalities (rule 8(2)), so such evidence can be regarded on detailed assessment; it also observed that comparative authorities on evidence sufficiency are fact‑specific and have limited general application.