Santiago v Motor Insurers\u2019 Bureau<\/em><\/a><\/strong> that the interpreter\u2019s fee should be regarded as a disbursement and was therefore recoverable.<\/p>\nThe court regarded the case as distinct from Aldred v Chan, <\/em>where the Court of Appeal disallowed the cost of obtaining counsel\u2019s opinion in addition to the fixed costs allowed. In that case, Lord Justice Coulson had ruled that the claimant\u2019s age and lack of English were not features of the dispute itself and so the costs of counsel\u2019s opinion were not to be regarded as a disbursement.<\/p>\nThat decision has led to some courts treating translator costs in general in the same way and preventing them from being recovered.<\/p>\n
But in Santiago, <\/em>Stuart-Smith said that where questions of access to justice arise, the court needed to apply a \u2018broader interpretation\u2019 of the rules to enable the dispute to be determined.<\/p>\nHe explained that denying recoverability of an interpreter\u2019s fees would not be in accordance with the overriding objective \u2018because it would tend to hinder access to justice by preventing a vulnerable party or witness from participating fully in proceedings and giving their best evidence\u2019.<\/p>\n
Stuart-Smith outlined that the issue was important for claimants to decide whether interpreters should participate fully in a trial. He said there are many cases stayed to await a ruling in this appeal.<\/p>\n
Raphael Santiago was a Brazilian national with a poor grasp of English who claimed for personal injury after an accident in 2018. His witness statement had been translated from Portuguese to English in-house by his solicitors, but at trial he required an independent interpreter.<\/p>\n
This person was booked to attend trial, but in the event the parties agreed a \u00a320,000 settlement before it began. The claim for the interpreter\u2019s fees was resisted and led to a deputy district judge ruling that, as a matter of principle, the costs were not recoverable.<\/p>\n
Ben Williams KC, representing the claimant, said the rules required that Santiago as a vulnerable person needed help to \u2018participate fully in proceedings and give their best evidence\u2019.<\/p>\n
Simon Browne KC, for the defendant, said Cham <\/em>was a binding authority and that the interpreter\u2019s fees should be treated as being within the fixed costs awarded to Santiago.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a>
\n
![](\"https:\/\/d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net\/pictures\/280x188\/7\/4\/9\/111749_royalcrtsofjustice_297_602444.jpg\")
<\/p>\n