Summary assessment

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

RTA Small Claims Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) updates—in force 1 October 2025

The Master of the Rolls has approved the amendments to the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA Small Claims Protocol), effective from 1 October 2025. The amendments deal with the treatment of non-Protocol vehicle costs (NVC) within the Official Injury Claim Portal. Previously, both claimants and compensators were required to manually upload NVC forms. Under the revised protocol, the portal will now automatically generate these forms using data provided by both parties, thereby streamlining the process and reducing the administrative burden.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—4 September 2025

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a Court of Appeal judgment clarifying the limited common law powers to issue anonymity and reporting restriction orders. We consider a County Court ruling on employer liability and limitation in a vibration-related injury claim and a High Court decision on quantifying damages under Spanish law. We include a case where QOCS protection was disapplied following strike-out, the new Product Regulation and Metrology Act and details of forthcoming changes to NHS charges in England. We also have a new Checklist on past expenses and losses in PI claims. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other news, cases, and webinars of interest.

NHS Resolution launches neutral evaluation scheme with first provider contracts

NHS Resolution (NHSR) has announced the launch of a neutral evaluation scheme for resolving disputes, awarding initial contracts to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and Trust Mediation. The scheme will cover all claims against the NHS, including clinical negligence, personal injury, costs, contract and property disputes. Under the scheme, parties agree to obtain a non-binding opinion from a neutral person, such as a former judge or KC, on the likely trial outcome. NHSR is developing selection criteria for suitable cases and expects to formally launch the scheme by end-2025. The initiative aims to reduce formal litigation, with NHSR indicating it will likely cover costs in cases where court proceedings are avoided. The announcement follows NHSR's success in resolving 83% of claims without formal proceedings in 2024/25.

The evidential burden in HAVS litigation: expert opinion and limitation challenges (Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Jack McCracken, co-author of the chapter on Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) in Munkman on Employer’s Liability (18th Edition), considers the first instance judgment of HHJ Saira Singh on a claim for HAVS. In Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd the claimant succeeded on liability and was awarded damages of £34,465.50. The judgment should interest industrial disease practitioners given the court’s approach to: (i) the limitation defence in the context of exposure to vibratory tools spanning over 20 years; and (ii) the approach to medical causation in respect of the second and third stages of the test for the diagnosis of HAVS in Montracon Ltd v Whalley [2005] EWCA Civ 1383, where there was contested expert medical evidence on the presentation and development of symptoms of HAVS and whether constitutional Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) could plausibly be considered a differential diagnosis. The judgment is also of interest on the quantum of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA), future care and assistance and whether an award for disadvantage on the open labour market should be made in accordance with Smith v Manchester. Written by Jack McCracken, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of