Significance: New guidance on proportionality
Facts: The CA were considering ATE premiums in clinical negligence claims and as an aside “clarified” the CA’s position on proportionality at detailed assessment.
Held: The procedure on detailed assessment was:-
(a) Stage 1:- the judge should conduct a line-by-line assessment of the reasonableness of each item of cost and the proportionality of each item can be considered if it is “possible, appropriate and convenient” to do so given that the issues of reasonableness and proportionality overlap.
(b) Stage 2:- the judge can then consider the proportionality of the resultant total figure of stage 1 by reference to the matters contained in both CPR r.44.3(5) and r.44.4(1). If the total is not disproportionate, that total figure is to be allowed.
(c) Stage 3:- If the figure resulting from Stage 1 is found to be disproportionate by reference r.44.3(5) and r.44.4(1), further reduction will be required by way of a third stage but should only be in relation to categories of cost, or specific periods and should not include elements to be excluded as they were “unavoidable” . The resultant total figure will be the proportionate sum to be allowed and there is no further “standing back” or final review by reference to proportionality.