‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 26th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 12th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd April 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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of what costs consequences, if any, should follow from the claimant’s failure to beat a Part 36 offer which had been withdrawn, the defendant having gone on to make a second, lower, offer.’
Zenith Chambers, 1st March 2018
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘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of what costs consequences, if any, should follow from the claimant’s failure to beat a Part 36 offer which had been withdrawn, the defendant having gone on to make a second, lower, offer.’
Zenith PI, 1st March 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 12th February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 20th December 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 9th November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th October 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 9th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Zenith PI, 8th September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Zenith PI, 5th September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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”.’
Litigation Futures, 15th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 10th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Zenith PI Blog, 31st July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 26th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 12th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘James E. Petts sets out some key considerations for local authorities looking to recover their costs.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The recent decision in Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc [2017] EWHC 391 (Comm) highlights the fact that defendants should not be confident that, if a claim fails, the unsuccessful claimants’ ATE policies will pay out’
Full story (PDF)
Radcliffe Chambers, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘A community-led recycling organisation has submitted a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority claiming that a county council’s contract with an incinerator company breaks competition law.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024