Settling for nil damages can still be a genuine Part 36 offer – MR v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 QB – Zenith PI

Posted September 6th, 2019 in assault, costs, damages, false imprisonment, harassment, news, part 36 offers, police by tracey

‘The appellant was arrested on suspicion of harassment but was later released without charge, after police had taken fingerprints and DNA samples. The appellant issued a claim for false imprisonment and assault.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 5th September 2019

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Offer to settle for no damages was valid under part 36 – Litigation Futures

‘An offer to settle a case for no damages but an admission of liability was a valid part 36 offer and it was not unjust to apply the usual consequences of beating an offer when the claimant won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 28th August 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36 consequences “are severable”, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted June 26th, 2019 in civil procedure rules, costs, judges, jurisdiction, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘The court can decide it is unjust to award some, but not all, of the consequences of beating a part 36 offer, a High Court judge has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 25th June 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Judge refuses uplift after successful part 36 offer on hourly rates – Litigation Futures

Posted May 29th, 2019 in costs, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘A judge has refused to award claimants an uplift on their costs after beating a part 36 offer restricted just to the hourly rates in dispute.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 29th May 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36 offer that included unpleaded counterclaim ruled valid – Litigation Futures

Posted May 8th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, delay, interest, negligence, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘A part 36 offer made by a defendant in respect of both a claim and a proposed counterclaim which has yet to be pleaded is valid, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 7th May 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Fixed fees can apply to claim which settled for £42k, court rules – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The courts have made clear they will be prepared to apply fixed costs to cases which have long since breached the £25,000 limit. Two judgments that have emerged over the past week show examples of judges considering fixed recoverable costs where the personal injury claims had exited the pre-action protocol.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 24th April 2019

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

High Court dispenses with electronic bill – Litigation Futures

Posted April 3rd, 2019 in budgets, costs, damages, electronic filing, negligence, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A High Court judge has relieved a claimant who won a trial in January from having to produce an electronic bill for the work undertaken since 6 April 2018.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 2nd April 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

DDJ “should not have interfered” with parties’ costs agreement – Litigation Futures

Posted January 14th, 2019 in accidents, appeals, consent orders, costs, news, part 36 offers, road traffic by tracey

‘A deputy district judge’s decision to vary a consent order for costs on the standard basis to apply fixed costs to a claim that started in the portal has been overturned.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 14th January 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Appeal refused over claimant who issued just to recover costs – Litigation Futures

Posted January 10th, 2019 in appeals, costs, news, part 36 offers, pre-action conduct by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal a High Court decision that found a claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th January 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36 penalties “severable”, says judge as she refuses 10% uplift – Litigation Futures

Posted January 7th, 2019 in costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘The consequences of beating a part 36 offer are “severable” and each should be assessed against the test of whether it would be unjust to award them, a judge has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 2nd January 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court cannot order costs on account after part 36 acceptance – Litigation Futures

Posted November 14th, 2018 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘The courts have no power to order the payment of costs on account after a part 36 offer is accepted, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 14th November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Defendants pay heavy price for refusing to discuss costs – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Defendants in a professional negligence claim who rejected the chance to settle costs have been left nursing a bill at least three times higher than it might have been.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 2nd November 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

High Court backs claimant who issued just to recover costs – Litigation Futures

Posted November 2nd, 2018 in abuse of process, civil procedure rules, costs, negligence, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs where the defendant “acted unfairly” by trying to settle pre-action but refusing to pay any costs, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 1st November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36 offer not a “trump card” to thwart court orders – Litigation Futures

‘A part 36 offer is not “some form of trump card” which overrides previous court orders, a High Court judge has made clear.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 30th October 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36: no presumption in favour of indemnity costs on late acceptance – Hailsham Chambers

Posted August 7th, 2018 in costs, delay, indemnities, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

‘Where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer after expiry of the 21 day period, many claimants (and legal commentators) have argued that the claimant should be entitled to recover indemnity costs from the expiry of the relevant period, just as they would if the case had gone to trial and the same result had been achieved. This argument has been particularly attractive to claimants where fixed costs apply, as an order for indemnity costs will allow the claimant to recover more than fixed costs. A number of County Court Judges and District Judges have accepted this argument in PI actions to which fixed costs apply.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 23rd July 2018

Source: zm4b8103lu53ydv9q1e2go51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Costs blow for tardy defendant with ‘worse than hopeless’ case – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 6th, 2018 in costs, delay, hospitals, indemnities, negligence, news, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

‘Civil claimants despairing at Part 36 costs rules have a ray of hope following a court’s decision to swing the pendulum their way again. In Holmes v West London Mental Health NHS Trust the High Court ruled last week that a defendant party who waited 15 months to accept a Part 36 offer must pay indemnity costs covering the period of delay.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 3rd August 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

CoA: Claimant limited to fixed costs even where Part 36 accepted late – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 24th, 2018 in appeals, costs, delay, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries by tracey

‘Fixed costs apply to low-value claims even when the defendant has waited more than 18 months to settle the claim, the Court of Appeal ruled today. In the long-awaited Hislop v Perde judgment, Lord Justice Coulson said the claimant could not argue that the delay – even with no apparent justification – triggered an ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision set out in Civil Procedure Rules.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 23rd July 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Court of Appeal overturns costs penalty imposed on claimant who gave dishonest evidence – Litigation Futures

Posted June 27th, 2018 in costs, disclosure, evidence, news, part 36 offers, penalties by tracey

‘A judge was wrong to penalise a claimant for not disclosing an important piece of evidence, given that the defendant made the part 36 offer she accepted in full knowledge of her dishonesty, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th June 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court of Appeal overturns ruling based on bad advice from counsel – Litigation Futures

Posted June 13th, 2018 in appeals, costs, indemnities, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of a High Court judge who was wrongly told by counsel that indemnity costs were the default order when a claimant failed to beat a part 36 offer.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th June 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court of Appeal finds way to apply fixed costs to EL case wrongly run outside portal – Litigation Futures

‘A claimant who wrongly began and settled their claim for noise-induced hearing loss outside of the EL/PL protocol should be limited to fixed costs under the provisions that penalise poor conduct in costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 23rd April 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com