‘A defendant who settles a claim that leaves the RTA protocol with a part 36 offer including the usual wording about paying costs on the standard basis is not contracting out of fixed costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that claimant solicitors should settle for fixed costs in a ruling that could send shivers through the claims sector.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th November 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A losing party has been ordered to pay an extra £65,000 after declining to settle a case over a difference amounting to less than £5,000.’
Law Society's Gazette, 15th November 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Zenith PI, 5th September 2019
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 28th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 25th June 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 29th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 7th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 24th April 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd April 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 9th January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 14th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd November 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 1st November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A part 36 offer is not “some form of trump card” which overrides previous court orders, a High Court judge has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 30th October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Hailsham Chambers, 23rd July 2018
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 3rd August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 23rd July 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024