Curtis v The Queen Elizabeth Hospital

The plaintiff in the case of Curtis v The Queen Elizabeth Hospital sought costs on a party/party basis as well as the costs of expert evidence. The defendant contested the plaintiff's entitlement to costs, arguing that the expert evidence was fundamentally flawed and thus not helpful to the court. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to give the required notice under Rule 6A.02, and therefore, the plaintiff's costs should be reduced by 10%.

The court considered the discretion in awarding costs and the plaintiff's failure to give the ninety-day notice under Rule 6A.02. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to give the notice did not prejudice the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff's costs would only be reduced by 10%. Furthermore, the court held that the expert evidence was fundamentally flawed and not helpful to the court in determining the issue of future economic loss. Therefore, the defendant should not pay the cost of and associated with the reports and evidence of Mr Magor.

The court awarded the plaintiff her costs of action on a party/party basis to be agreed or taxed, such costs to be reduced by 10%. Additionally, the plaintiff was not to have the costs of and incidental to Mr Magor's reports and evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the costs of the flawed expert evidence and that the defendant should not bear the cost of the expert evidence. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs of action on a party/party basis, reduced by 10%.