Gibbings-Johns v Corliss (No. 2)

In the matter of Gibbings-Johns v Corliss (No. 2), the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the plaintiff had previously overstated his loss of earning capacity both during a conference before the trial and during the trial itself. The defendant argued that they were justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s methodology for assessing the loss of earning capacity. The court also considered whether the proceedings should have been brought in the District Court rather than the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff’s overstatement of his loss of earning capacity warranted awarding costs on an indemnity basis, as opposed to the standard basis. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff's actions were so unreasonable that they warranted indemnity costs, which cover the defendant's actual costs, rather than the lower standard costs which are capped. Additionally, the court examined whether the proceedings should have been brought in the District Court, as the plaintiff's claims did not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that court.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s actions were indeed unreasonable and that the defendant was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's methodology. However, the court found that the circumstances did not warrant indemnity costs. Instead, the court awarded costs on the standard basis, reflecting the nature of the proceedings which should have been brought in the District Court. The scale of the costs was to be assessed appropriately for proceedings in the District Court.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the scale appropriate for proceedings in the District Court. This decision underscores the importance of accurate assessment of damages and the consequences of overstating loss of earning capacity, while also highlighting the appropriate forum for such claims.