We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

Costs: Potential perils of exaggerating claims

The recent case of London Tara Hotel Ltd v Kensington Close Hotel Ltd [2011] EWHC 29 (Ch) sounds a further warning shot for claimants who grossly exaggerate their claim.

The case concerned issues of costs arising from the dismissal of the claimant's (L) substantive claim for damages for trespass against the defendant for use of a private access road, and the defendant’s (K) successful counterclaim for a declaration that it had been entitled to use the road (see [2010] All ER (D) 09 (Nov)). In the costs hearing before Roth J sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court it was submitted by K that its costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis in respect of two periods: (i) a period during which L's claim in damages had been enormously exaggerated and, (ii) a period during which L rejected a relevant part 36 offer to settle. 

Although Roth J did not find that L had sufficiently exaggerated its claim for K to merit an award of indemnity costs, he emphasised that “in appropriate circumstances the presentation of a grossly inflated claim might constitute conduct that could justify an award of indemnity costs.” 

Roth J noted that under CPR 44.3 the power to award indemnity costs was not restricted only to cases where the conduct of a party deserved moral condemnation. Applying the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879, he reaffirmed that the critical requirement was whether there was some conduct or some circumstance which took the case outside the norm in a way that such an order was justified. A gross exaggeration of a claim would constitute unreasonable conduct that took a case outside the norm.

Elizabeth Dwomoh / 1st Feb 2011


The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.

Download as PDF

Back to News