4 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC”: SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
Top Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
- COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM...)
- ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
- COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID - FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL'S FEES IN THE EQUATION...
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Hi Gordon,
Can you please clarify the figures in the blog post as you seem to suggest that even if interest has not been taken into account C would not have beaten their own offer (of £561k) as they were only awarded £518k inclusive of interest.
Should £561k read £516k?
If so, what would have happened, in your view, if C had offered £516k inclusive of interest (and was subsequently awarded £518k inclusive of interest, thereby meaning that they beat their own offer)?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Robin Torr
Senior Solicitor, Head of Personal Injury Department
0161 833 0044
http://www.abacus-law.co.uk
[X]
Abacus Solicitors LLP, Reedham House, 31-33 King Street West, Manchester M3 2PN
Tel: 0161 833 0044 Fax: 0161 833 4004 Email: info@abacus-law.co.uk DX: 14389 Manchester
Also at Victoria Chambers, 10 Grappenhall Road, Stockton Heath, Warrington WA4 2AG
Many thanks Robin,
I have clarified the figures (which are now set out above). The scenario is that the claimant offered £516,000 and received £518,000. He did not recover additional liabilities because the only reason the award was higher was the supervening interest.
The figures above are a bit confused. C’s offer was £516K (not £561K). The award was £470K + interest £48,983.01, totalling £518,983.01 (which explains why C considered he had beaten his offer). Once interest which had accrued between expiry of the relevant period of the offer and the trial date was deducted, the award for comparison with the offer was £507,046.30.
Sorry – it was clearly being corrected as I typed.