Description
The judge at first instance had appeared to have made an arithmetical error in determining the sum for which judgment should be given and the appeal was to that extent allowed. Permission to appeal on costs was refused as there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal. The Claimant complained that, in addition to indemnity costs the judge should have given her the additional consequences available to a claimant who had made a Part 36 offer which a defendant had been unable to better at judgment however there was no reason to revisit his exercise of discretion. The Claimant also alleged bias and prejudice against the judge who had refused permission to appeal and refused to recuse himself from dealing with the r.52.17 application. However, there was not the slightest evidence whatsoever of any bias of prejudice, actual or even apparent. Therefore the balance of the Claimant's application to appeal and to re-open previous failed attempts to appeal was dismissed.
