Whilst a litigant was entitled to engage any lawyer he chose, the question whether he had been reasonable in his choice had to be looked at objectively on the taxation of his costs.

The plaintiff had brought his claim in the courts in London and had instructed solicitors in London. The main basis of the objection was that the case was more closely associated with Manchester, and if the case had been brought there the costs incurred would have been less.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the defendant against the amount allowed in relation to solicitors charging rates on taxation of the plaintiffs costs, following an award made against the defendant.

Arbitrators erred in making an award of costs when deciding that the plaintiff (also the claimant) had failed to beat a Calderbank offer made by the respondent. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs. The judge at first instance concluded that the arbitrators had made an arithmetical error, but there could be no appeal on a point of law because the arbitration agreement excluded all rights of appeal. Moreover, the arbitrators mistake did not involve excess of jurisdiction, misconduct or procedural mishap.

The Court of Appeal remitted the award to the tribunal. An arithmetical error such as this could normally be amended under the slip rule. If the arbitrators did not correct it then that would be a procedural mishap.