MR PATRICK PLUNKETT MRS LINDA PLUNKETT v The Coal Authority
Decision date: 12 July 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 212 (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 recovery of the claimants' costs under s.38 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 following a damage notice for subsidence at Wylam Cottage. The Tribunal held that "costs or expenses reasonably incurred" must be read to require proportionality, applied the pre‑1 April 2013 (Lownds) two‑stage proportionality test to the work done, and found on the material before it that the claimants' overall costs were prima facie disproportionate, with particular scrutiny required for costs incurred after the Coal Authority's October 2007 offer and for costs on abandoned heads. Detailed assessment of the bill and the preliminary hearing costs was reserved.
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
The statutory phrase "costs or expenses reasonably incurred" in s.38 must be read to include a proportionality requirement as to scope and amount; for work carried out before 1 April 2013 the appropriate test is the pre‑2013 Lownds two‑stage approach (global assessment against relevant factors, and if disproportionate, examination of necessity and reasonableness of individual items). Offers made in the proceedings are relevant to entitlement to costs and may reduce recoverability where not beaten.
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 (obiter) that it is desirable to avoid a mismatch between statutory deemed awards and discretionary costs assessments in light of Practice Directions and linked rules; that a claimant may recover costs of investigations into issues later abandoned if those investigations were reasonably believed at the time to be part of the claim (subject to proportionality); and that the post‑2013 CPR proportionality test should not be applied retrospectively to pre‑2013 costs.