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

Withdrawn But Not Forgotten? – Effect Of A Withdrawn Part 36 Offer – Zenith Chambers

Posted March 20th, 2018 in appeals, costs, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett had to consider the issue of what costs consequences, if any, should follow from the claimant’s failure to beat a Part 36 offer which had been withdrawn, the defendant having gone on to make a second, lower, offer.’

Full Story

Zenith Chambers, 1st March 2018

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Withdrawn But Not Forgotten? – Effect Of A Withdrawn Part 36 Offer – Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) – Zenith PI

Posted March 5th, 2018 in appeals, costs, health, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries, rescission by tracey

‘In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett had to consider the issue of what costs consequences, if any, should follow from the claimant’s failure to beat a Part 36 offer which had been withdrawn, the defendant having gone on to make a second, lower, offer.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 1st March 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Pre-trial 90% part 36 offer was “genuine attempt” to settle – Litigation Futures

Posted February 12th, 2018 in damages, negligence, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries by tracey

‘The High Court has rejected the argument that a part 36 offer to settle a clinical negligence claim for 90% of its value was not a genuine offer because it was made shortly before trial.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th February 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Provisional assessment cap not displaced by part 36 offer, Court of Appeal rules – Litigation Futures

Posted December 20th, 2017 in costs, indemnities, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘An award of indemnity costs after a successful part 36 offer in a provisional assessment does not remove the £1,500 costs cap, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning the High Court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 20th December 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

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

Posted November 10th, 2017 in costs, defamation, delay, news, part 36 offers, penalties by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th November 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Whalley v Advantage Insurance [2017]: Costs Consequences Following the Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offers in Fixed Costs Cases – Zenith PI Blog

Posted October 12th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, delay, insurance, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries by sally

‘The Claimant brought a claim for personal injury arising out a road traffic accident which took place on 11th July 2014. The Claimant went on to make a Part 36 offer to accept an 85/15 split on liability dated 7th December 2015. The Defendant’s time for accepting the offer expired on 30th December 2015. The Defendant did not in fact accept the Claimant’s Part 36 offer until 29th January 2016. The delay in accepting the offer was therefore just under one month post expiry. Quantum was agreed in the sum of £10,000 which was paid. The issue was whether the Claimant’s costs were limited to fixed costs for the entire action or whether the Claimant was entitled to either assessed costs or indemnity costs for the period 30th December 2015 to 29th January 2016.’

Full Story

Zenith PI Blog, 11th October 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Regional costs judge reverses position on part 36 offers in fixed-costs cases – Litigation Futures

Posted October 9th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, indemnities, judges, news, part 36 offers by sally

‘A regional costs judge has concluded that he was wrong to rule in a previous case that late acceptance of a part 36 offer automatically entitled the claimant to an award of indemnity costs, and thus provided an escape route out of fixed costs.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th October 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Uncertainty of prognosis is no excuse for late acceptance of Part 36 offer – Zenith PI

Posted September 8th, 2017 in delay, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries by tracey

‘Briggs v CEF Holdings Ltd (2017) CA (unreported). It is not uncommon for a defendant to make a part 36 offer early on in proceedings before the full prognosis is known. The frequency with which claimant representatives are faced with the difficulty of advising clients in these circumstances does not reduce its impact.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 8th September 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Fail to engage in adr at your peril – Zenith PI

Posted September 7th, 2017 in arbitration, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries by tracey

‘Marsh v Ministry of Justice (2017) QBD is a timely reminder of the need for parties to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in personal injury claims.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 5th September 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

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

Posted August 16th, 2017 in appeals, costs, dispute resolution, indemnities, judges, news, part 36 offers, utilities by sally

‘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”.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 15th August 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

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

Posted August 10th, 2017 in costs, delay, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th August 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Part 36 : THE Court’s Approach Following Disclosure of Existence of an Offer – Zenith PI Blog

Posted July 31st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, judges, news, part 36 offers, shareholders by sally

‘In a long running shareholder dispute, the claimant company sought its costs from the defendants. The defendants had made 3 Part 36 offers in respect of the claimants claim against them. The judge had determined a number of issues in a hearing in November 2016, however there were other remaining issues to be tried. The court was made aware of the fact, but NOT the content, of the offers.’

Full Story

Zenith PI Blog, 31st July 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Court of Appeal overturns ruling in favour of claimant that accepted part 36 offer late – Litigation Futures

‘Uncertainty regarding a claimant’s prognosis is part of the usual risk of personal injury litigation and not enough to justify disapplying the usual consequences of accepting a part 36 offer out of time, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Party failed in bid to accept lapsed part 36 offer after start of trial – Litigation Futures

Posted July 13th, 2017 in news, part 36 offers, trials by tracey

‘The High Court has rejected an application by a claimant to accept a lapsed part 36 offer after seeing the way the trial of their case had begun, with the defendant now keen to “take its chances” on the outcome.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com