Question 1 of 10

The Claimant Maria Chalmers has brought a personal injury claim for the misdiagnosis of a serious digestive disorder which has left her with long term complications. She has brought the claim in the alternative against Gladbury Health Authority (‘GHA’) as vicariously liable for the actions of Dr Prince, an NHS consultant gastroenterologist and Dr Wadham, a private consultant gastroenterologist who the Claimant saw a few months after the initial NHS consultation. Throughout the claim both Defendants have denied liability and blamed each other for missing key presenting symptoms which should have led a reasonable practitioner to the correct diagnosis. The case has turned substantially on complex causation issues and the medical evidence has been in dispute throughout with both defendants adducing cogent expert evidence which support their cases. You can assume there are no conduct issues in respect of any party in terms of the manner in which the claim was raised, contested or pursued. At trial and on the basis of the oral expert evidence the Judge finds that Dr Wadham is solely liable ( ‘the successful claim’) and the claim against GHA is dismissed ( ‘the unsuccessful claim’).Acknowledging that the court has a broad discretion as to costs, which of the following would be the MOST LIKELY costs order in these circumstances? :-

A. An order that Dr Wadham pay the Claimant’s costs of the successful claim and no order for costs in respect of GHA’s costs of the unsuccessful claim. B. An order that Dr Wadham pay the Claimant’s costs of the successful claim and the Claimant pay GHA’s costs of the unsuccessful claim with no right to be indemnified by Dr Wadham. C. An order that Dr Wadham pay the Claimant’s costs of the successful claim and GHA’s costs of the unsuccessful claim are split so that Dr Wadham pays two thirds and the Claimant one third. D. An order that Dr Wadham pay the Claimant’s costs of the successful claim and also pay GHA’s costs of the unsuccessful claim.