Summary assessment

Summary assessment

What is summary assessment?

The provisions relating to summary assessment are set out in CPR 44 and CPR PD 44. Summary assessment is defined under CPR 44.1 as the procedure where costs are assessed by the judge who has heard the case or application. The general rule is that the court should carry out a summary assessment of costs either at the conclusion of a fast track trial, in which case the order will deal with the costs of the whole claim, or at the conclusion of any other hearing which has not lasted for more than one day (CPR PD 44, para 9.2). Where costs are summarily assessed in relation to any other hearing (not the trial), the court order will deal with the costs of the application or matter to which the hearing related. If the hearing disposes the whole claim (eg if there is a successful strike out application) the court order can deal with the costs of the whole claim (CPR PD 44, para 9.2). If the court considers that summary assessment is inappropriate it may order the costs to be dealt

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

When planning missed the mark and consent missed the point—navigating duty in cardiac care (HQA v Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant suffered a hypoxic brain injury when her aorta was pierced during open heart surgery. It took 24 minutes to establish a cardiopulmonary bypass. The court held that the piercing of the aorta was not in itself negligent, but the operating surgeon failed to take appropriate mitigating measures in the preparation of the operation, given the medium to high risk of aortic damage. The court considered competing expert evidence on mitigating measures that might have been taken, surgical risks and informed consent. Written by Howard Elgot and Megan Crowther, barristers at Parklane Plowden Chambers, who appeared for the successful claimant.

Bucking the trend—No liability under the Animals Act in horse-riding injury claim (O’Connell v MoD)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In a claim arising out of a horse-riding accident, the claimant failed to prove that the defendant was liable in negligence or under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971). The AA 1971 claim failed because the court was not convinced that severe injury was likely as a result of a horse bucking—a requirement of AA 1971, s 2(2)(a). This is an interesting decision because other courts have come to the opposite conclusion in similar circumstances in cases such as Freeman v Higher Park Farm and Koestler v Thomas & Nolton Stables. Further, the defendant successfully argued that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in her presentation of symptoms and restrictions as well as certain claims made. The defendant was given permission to enforce any costs order against the claimant. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Fraudsters using court ruling to inflate claims, Allianz says

Law360, London: Insurer Allianz UK said on 22 September 2025 that fraudsters are inflating claims by exploiting a legal precedent left after a landmark UK court ruling on whiplash.

DHSC and NHS England launch Jess’s Rule to avoid delays in diagnosis

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England have launched Jess’s Rule across general practitioner (GP) practices in England to help avoid missed or delayed diagnoses and minimise preventable deaths. The initiative requires GPs to adopt a ‘three strikes and rethink approach’—reconsidering their assessment if, after three appointments, no substantiated diagnosis has been made or symptoms have escalated. Jess’s Rule provides GPs with guidelines to reflect, review and rethink where a patient’s condition remains uncertain. This may involve arranging face-to-face consultations where previous appointments were remote, conducting physical examinations, ordering diagnostic tests, or seeking second opinions and specialist referrals. By embedding this as standard practice across England, the measure aims to prevent delays, reduce health inequalities and secure earlier diagnoses, especially for young people and patients from ethnic minority backgrounds.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News