The recent High Court decision in XX v Jordan Young & Aviva Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 2073 (SCCO) offers guidance on proportionality in costs assessments.


🔍 Background
Claimant settled a personal injury case for £149,000.
▪️ Legal costs claimed: £517,985.
▪️ After line-by-line assessment, reduced to £339,565.16 (34.4% reduction).
▪️ A further proportionality cut brought the final award to £324,029.77.

⚖️ Key Principles Reaffirmed
▪️ Proportionality is applied after detailed assessment, not before.
▪️ Courts consider the realistic bracket of potential outcomes (here, £149k–£2.5m), not just settlement figures.
▪️ Factors such as complexity, conduct, and claimant vulnerability play a central role.

📹 On Surveillance & Exaggeration Allegations
The defendant argued the claimant exaggerated injuries. The judge rejected this:

▪️ Settlement already factored in contributory negligence.
▪️ Costs assessments aren’t the place to revisit exaggeration claims.
▪️ Any misconduct arguments should be raised at the settlement stage.

✅ Final Takeaway
This case underscores that proportionality remains a distinct and final step in costs assessment. Courts will continue to look beyond raw settlement numbers, taking into account conduct and claimant circumstances.

The recent High Court decision in XX v Jordan Young & Aviva Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 2073 (SCCO) offers guidance on proportionality in costs assessments.


🔍 Background
Claimant settled a personal injury case for £149,000.
▪️ Legal costs claimed: £517,985.
▪️ After line-by-line assessment, reduced to £339,565.16 (34.4% reduction).
▪️ A further proportionality cut brought the final award to £324,029.77.

⚖️ Key Principles Reaffirmed
▪️ Proportionality is applied after detailed assessment, not before.
▪️ Courts consider the realistic bracket of potential outcomes (here, £149k–£2.5m), not just settlement figures.
▪️ Factors such as complexity, conduct, and claimant vulnerability play a central role.

📹 On Surveillance & Exaggeration Allegations
The defendant argued the claimant exaggerated injuries. The judge rejected this:

▪️ Settlement already factored in contributory negligence.
▪️ Costs assessments aren’t the place to revisit exaggeration claims.
▪️ Any misconduct arguments should be raised at the settlement stage.

✅ Final Takeaway
This case underscores that proportionality remains a distinct and final step in costs assessment. Courts will continue to look beyond raw settlement numbers, taking into account conduct and claimant circumstances.