Tag Results

High Court: 10% part 36 uplift applies to damages plus basic interest

The High Court has made it clear that the additional 10% uplift on damages the courts can award for beating a part 36 offer means an uplift on damages plus basic interest. It also said the court’s focus under part 36 must be “upon the conduct of the litigation”, and not on “whether the claimant had led a blameless life up until the moment when a tort was committed against him”.

November 30th, 2017 | No Comments »

High Court issues costs penalties for claimants’ conduct in settling claim

A corporate claimant that accepted a part 36 offer late should not get its costs up to the point where the offer expired because its conduct meant the usual rule should not apply, the High Court has ruled. Mr Justice Warby also made an indemnity costs order after the claimants’ settled for a fraction of the damages they sought.

November 9th, 2017 | No Comments »

Appeal judges uphold indemnity costs order in “long and acrimonious” neighbour dispute

The Court of Appeal has backed the order of indemnity costs against a retired couple involved in a battle over access to gas and electricity meters, who “had not come to court to assist the court in resolving the dispute but to assist themselves”. Lord Justice David Richards said they face having to pay “well over £200,000” to cover their neighbour’s costs.

August 15th, 2017 | 1 Comment »

F1 personality ordered to pay part 36 indemnity costs over failure to engage in settlement

The High Court has ordered well-known Formula 1 personality Eddie Jordan to pay indemnity costs after he accepted a “very historic” £15,000 part 36 offer that was still open on the eve of trial – and which was £85,000 less than he had been offered a year earlier. Mr Justice Mann said he was penalising Mr Jordan’s “culpable failure to engage in negotiations”.

August 10th, 2017 | No Comments »

High Court: part 36 offer meant party could not accept earlier ‘without prejudice’ offer

The High Court has ruled that a claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counter-offer, meaning that an earlier common law offer by the defendants no longer remained open for acceptance. Andrew Hochhauser QC, sitting as a High Court judge, said there was “apparently no authority directly on the point”.

July 15th, 2016 | 1 Comment »

High Court rejects Clifford’s attempt to slash costs through “inadequate” Calderbank offer

The High Court has rejected jailed publicist Max Clifford’s attempt to limit its costs to only £5,000 in a privacy claim by making an “inadequate” Calderbank offer. Deputy Judge Spearman said an “appropriate part 36 offer” would have protected the defendant.

March 21st, 2016 | No Comments »

Defendants lose out as judges insist on strict interpretation of part 36

Defendants have failed in two separate recent attempts to persuade courts to interpret the part 36 costs rules in a way that suited them. In the first case, the High Court ruled that a defendant NHS trust must pay costs in the usual way under the “separate, self-contained” part 36 rules even though most of the claim was unsuccessful.

March 16th, 2016 | No Comments »

Court of Appeal reaffirms death of “near miss” rule for part 36 offers

There is no longer a “near miss” rule for Part 36 offers, appeal judges have made clear as they overturned a High Court decision which seemed to suggest that there was one. Lord Justice Tomlinson described Mr Justice Eder’s decision as “outside the bounds of reasonable decision-making”.

February 15th, 2016 | No Comments »

Part 36 offer which did not reflect “available outcome” was valid

A part 36 offer which did not reflect an “available outcome of the litigation” was nonetheless valid, the High Court has ruled. Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said the claimant’s offer could not be described as “all take and no give”.

February 10th, 2016 | No Comments »

Court of Appeal to rule on interplay between fixed costs and part 36 offers

The Court of Appeal is to decide on whether a party who beats a part 36 offer in a case where fixed fees apply is eligible for indemnity costs as well. The news comes in the wake of conflicting circuit judge rulings on the issue.

January 18th, 2016 | No Comments »