In the recent case of Milmoe v Chatzis and Sheldon Investments Ltd (trading as River Medical Group)1, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse a differential costs Order, despite the damages awarded being at the Circuit Court level. The Court held that, since there was neither a warning letter nor any engagement between the parties regarding remittal, the trial judge had appropriately exercised discretion in refusing the Order. Here, we outline the key facts and takeaways from the case.
Background
In this case, the plaintiff brought High Court proceedings alleging negligence against a Consultant Surgeon and a clinic for the post-operative care provided to the plaintiff following breast uplift surgery. The High Court ultimately found for the plaintiff and made an award in the plaintiff's favour at the Circuit Court level. The defendant sought a differential costs Order and was refused.
The appeal
The Clinic appealed the decision, contesting both the method used to calculate damages and the refusal to grant a differential costs Order. Judge Meenan rejected both grounds of the appeal. In rejecting the costs differential Order, Judge Meenan considered the circumstances under which a differential costs order should be granted when the final award falls within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
The High Court awarded the plaintiff damages totalling €44,460, which falls below the jurisdiction of the High Court (€60,000). The Clinic then sought a costs differential Order under section 17 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. The Court refused to make a costs differential Order where the Defendant had not sent a costs differential warning letter to the Plaintiff, nor were there any pre-trial engagement in relation to the issue. The Court of Appeal determined that the High Court’s discretion had been properly exercised and therefore, it upheld the decision.
Key takeaways for insurers
Differential cost orders are a matter of judicial discretion and their availability depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
For insurers and legal teams, this decision highlights the importance of proactive case management. Where there is a reasonable expectation that damages may fall below the jurisdictional threshold, parties should consider issuing a costs differential warning letter and engaging in discussions about remittal.
These steps may strengthen the prospects of securing a differential costs order.
For further advice, please get in touch with our experts.
