‘A High Court master has allowed a party’s bid to withdraw a part 36 offer ahead of the new discount rate coming into force on Monday, even though they used a defective method to deliver it.
Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A deputy High Court judge has refused to provide a receiving party with an “indication” of whether it acted reasonably in exceeding its costs budget, saying trial judges should “not seek to trammel the costs judge’s jurisdiction” unless there are specific issues they want to raise.’
Litigation Futures, 14th March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A recent ruling caused by “shoddy” drafting of the CPR highlights the importance of any extension of fixed costs being accompanied by “a well-drafted and fully integrated set of procedural rules”, a costs specialist has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Judges should be “very slow to entertain a discussion as to whether parties to litigation have negotiated in a reasonable manner”, the Court of Appeal has cautioned.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk`
‘A part 36 offer acts as a counter-offer that extinguishes an earlier offer based on common law principles, the High Court has ruled in a decision that one of the solicitors involved said “could influence settlement techniques and tactics in many commercial disputes in future”.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Costs should not be taken into account when deciding whether a part 36 offer has been beaten, the High Court has ruled, but they are relevant when deciding whether to apply the consequences of beating an offer.’
Litigation Futures, 1st November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Kerry Underwood examines qualified one-way costs shifting.’
New Law Journal, 18th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The assignment of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) is under the spotlight yet again after a costs judge ruled that one had been validly made.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd August 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘While the Magistrates Courts continue to hand out paltry fines to landlords on conviction for illegal eviction, despite the removal of the upper £5000 limit, it is good to see that the civil courts are capable of taking a more reasonable approach to quantum.’
Nearly Legal, 13th August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer because of the fall in the value of sterling since the Brexit vote has been denied the usual benefits of enhanced interest, indemnity costs and an additional payment that would have been the maximum £75,000 given the sums at stake.’
Litigation Futures, 29th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation futures, 15th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Litigators beware – open conduct in litigation could change the effect of a Part 36 offer, warns Alan Tunkel.’
Counsel, July 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)
‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘HHJ Pelling QC considered whether, when considering if a claimant had beaten its Part 36 offer, the court should simply compare the amount of the judgment with the offer the claimant had made or if account should be taken of the interest that had accrued in the period leading up to the trial.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th July 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer at trial because of the interest on the damages awarded through to judgment is not entitled to enhanced costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A successful part 36 offer in a provisional assessment removes the £1,500 costs cap, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant should be awarded full costs of bringing her case despite losing on one of the issues.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th April 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024