Hunt V Annolight Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1663 (10 November 2021) 21 October 2021

Published date19 January 2022
Subject MatterCorporate/Commercial Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Privilege
Law FirmGatehouse Chambers
AuthorMr Mark O'Grady and Amy Held

Background

This appeal arose from an application by the Defendant Respondents ("the Defendants") for wasted costs orders against the Defendant Appellant ("Walker Prestons"), the former legal representatives of the Claimant ("Mr Hunt"). In 2016, Mr Hunt issued proceedings for damages for hearing loss allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to noise at work, and the Defendants were companies for which Mr Hunt was said to have worked during the relevant time frame.

In January 2019, Part 18 Requests were made by the Defendants. Two issues on which clarification had been sought were whether Mr Hunt had been a director of the Third Defendant; and whether he had been provided with hearing protection. Walker Prestons provided a Response apparently signed by Mr Hunt in May 2019.

When the case came on for trial in December 2019, Counsel for Mr Hunt informed the Court that Mr Hunt said he had not signed the Part 18 Response; and was discontinuing his claim in its entirety.

The Applications for Wasted Costs Orders

The Defendants accordingly each sought a wasted costs order. However, none of the application notices expanded on the grounds on which a wasted costs order was said to be appropriate. Rather, each application was supported by a witness statement. In sum, the applications took issue with (i) whether Mr Hunt had been a director of the Third Defendant; (ii) whether Mr Hunt had been provided with hearing protection; and (iii) the authenticity of Mr Hunt's signature on the Part 18 Response.

On 24 January 2020, the supervising partner with conduct of Mr Hunt's case at Walker Prestons ("Mr Sarwar") made a witness statement, which indicated that:

  1. his statement was limited to dealing with the Third Defendant's application for a wasted costs order;
  2. Walker Prestons was "necessarily limited in addressing matters which are clearly privileged;"
  3. there was no evidence as to whether Walker Prestons or did not take instructions from Mr Hunt as to whether he had been a director of the Third Defendant; and
  4. it was "categorically" not the case that Walker Prestons had been involved in forging Mr Hunt's signature on the Part 18 replies.

The Defendants' applications came before HHJ Judge Godsmark QC on 22 April 2020, who considered the issues of oral evidence and whether Mr Hunt should be given an opportunity to engage in the proceedings. The order subsequently drawn up added Walker Prestons as defendants for costs purposes only, and directed that oral evidence would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT