COST BITES 274: IN CONSIDERING WHETHER TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS HOW RELEVANT IS A DEFENDANT’S WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER? (THE CLAIMANT THAT TURNED DOWN $50 MILLION DOLLARS – AND THEN LOST AT TRIAL…
Here we look at a short judgment on costs. The judge considered whether an indemnity costs should be made and the date from which the indemnity costs order should take effect. There were several factors specific to this case, however…
COST BITES 266: THE DEFENDANT WHO OBTAINED AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS IN HER FAVOUR AND STILL ENDED UP CONSIDERABLY OUT OF POCKET: PART 36 OFFERS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS: PLUS – “COSTS CAPPING” CONSIDERED – AND REFUSED
We are looking at a case where a defendant successfully defended an application to commit, was awarded indemnity costs and yet ended up considerably out of pocket. It shows the importance of a well judged Part 36 offer by the…
PART 36: SHOULD THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLY WHEN A CLAIMANT HAD, EFFECTIVELY, OFFERED “NIL” ON A COUNTERCLAIM (THAT FAILED)?
Here we are looking at some interesting arguments on Part 36 put forward by an, obviously disappointed, defendant. The claimant had beaten its own Part 36 offer and defeated the defendant’s counterclaim totally. Nevertheless, the defendant argued, this was not…
PART 36, REFUSAL TO MEDIATE AND SHOULD A PARTY BE SUBJECT TO THE PART 36 PENALTIES WHEN AN OFFER WAS MADE TO THREE DEFENDANTS?
What should the court do in a case where a Part 36 offer is made in relation to a number of defendants but the claimant only succeeds against one of them? Can a failure to accept an offer of mediation…
COSTS AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES CONSIDERED WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: CIRCUIT COMMERCIAL COURT DECISION: HOW IS THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY CALCULATED WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS NOT IN STERLING?
We are looking at a case where the claimant beat its own Part 36 offer and the court had to consider the consequences. There were some unusual aspects in that the judgment was not given in sterling. However the judge…
FOUR PART 36 WEBINARS – ALL AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: WHAT A TREAT – POTENTIALLY A WHOLE NIGHT’S VIEWING…
The webinar on Part 36 that I broadcast earlier this week is now available on YouTube and can be found here. Links to previous webinars on Part 36 can be found below. MATTERS COVERED IN THE 2025 WEBINAR This…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 103: THE STANDARD FORM FOR PART 36 OFFERS
Yesterday I gave a webinar about Part 36, this will shortly be available on YouTube. The webinar reviews cases over the past 12 months. One of the points being considered was the arguments in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments…
CLAIMANT FAILS TO BEAT DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER “BY A WHISKER”: IS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?
Here we are considering a High Court decision about the consequences of a Part 36 offer. The claimant failed to beat the offer “by a whisker” because of the way in which interest was calculated. The judge considered the claimant’s…
PART 36 IN THE COURTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2025: KINGS CHAMBERS
There is always a batch of interesting cases on Part 36, for the past four years I have reviewed this in a webinar arranged by my chambers. This year is no different and the webinar takes place on the 3rd…
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER: WEBINAR 21st MAY 2025
A defendant is entitled to make a Part 36 offer whenever it wants. The making of an early offer can cause major problems for claimants and their lawyers. An understanding of the rules, the relevant cases and the steps that…
PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFERRES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS
In Thomas Barry & Anor v Denis Barry [2025] EWHC 819 (KB) Mr Justice Dexter Dias rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants should not receive an additional amount in circumstances where they had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The…
PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT
Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: “THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS”
The judgment in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Price [2020] EWHC 3276 (Ch) was given in October 2020, but has only recently arrived on BAILII. It concerns late service of a Part 36 offer. This is an issue rarely considered…
IT WAS NOT “UNJUST” FOR THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY: THE EXISTENCE OF A MAIN CLAIM (WHICH DID NOT SUCCEED) COULD NOT ASSIST THE DEFENDANT
In South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 3544 (Ch) Mr Justice Richards considered the arguments as whether it was “unjust” for the normal provisions of a Part 36 offer to apply. He…
CLAIMANT IS SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL, BUT DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER MEANS THAT CLAIMANT PAYS THE COSTS: A REMINDER THAT PART 36 REMAINS IMPORTANT – EVEN AT THE APPEAL STAGE
I am grateful to my colleague Steven Turner for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision on costs in Majid -v- HSF Logistics Polksa AP.ZO., a copy of which is available here CA Decision on Costs (and…
CLAIMANT BEATS HIS OWN “NON MONETARY” OFFER: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW: INDEMNITY COSTS BECAUSE OF CONDUCT
In Grierson v Grierson [2024] EWHC 3048 (Ch) Joanne Wicks KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) found that a claimant had made a Part 36 offer which the defendant had failed to beat. The offer was…
PART 36: THE CONSEQUENCES APPLY TO A CLAIMANT’S OFFER EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CLAIM FOR A MONETARY AWARD
In Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that Part 36 applies even when the claim was not, directly, for a monetary award. There was…
A PART 36 OFFER MADE PRE-TRIAL WAS NOT OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE WHILST QUANTUM WAS BEING ASSESSED: WHEN IS A SPLIT TRIAL NOT A SPLIT TRIAL?
In Wells v Hornshaw & Ors [2024] EWHC 2019 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson rejected a petitioner’s argument that a Part 36 offer remained open for acceptance. There had been a trial after the Part 36 offer had been made. …
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER ON LIABILITY NOT EFFECTIVE WHEN CAUSATION WAS STILL AT LARGE: NOT AN EFFECTIVE TRY
In Elbanna v Clark (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1471 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting found that a claimant’s Part 36 offer to accept 75% of liability was too ambiguous to be effective when issues of causation were also to be…
PART 36 THE PAST 12 MONTHS: HOW HUGH GRANT AND THE DUKE OF SUSSEX FEATURE IN A WEBINAR ABOUT CIVIL PROCEDURE: USEFUL WATCHING IF YOU HAVE TIME TO SPARE…
The webinar I gave on the 13th May discussing Part 36 cases over the previous 12 months is now available on YouTube on this link. Cases looked at include: Holden -v- Holden – were Part 36 offers valid offers? Colicci…
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER 2024 : WEBINAR 13th MAY 2024
The making of an early Part 36 offer can cause major problems for claimants and their lawyers. An understanding of the rules, the relevant cases and the steps that need to be taken when a Part 36 offer is made…
COST BITES 147: WHO IS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY? WHAT SUMS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR LOSING ON CERTAIN POINTS? DOES A CALDERBANK OFFER MATTER?
In South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Ltd [2024] EWHC 842 (Ch) Mr Justice Rajah determined issues relating to the costs of an action where the defendant had been largely successful. A Calderbank offer from the Defendant,…
PART 36: NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT OFFER MADE – REGARDLESS OF FINDINGS OF MISCONDUCT IN THE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION
In ABFA Commodities Trading Ltd v Petraco Oil Company SA (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 706 (Comm) Mr Justice Foxton found that the normal Part 36 consequences should follow when a party (the effective claimant in the action) had beaten…
CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COPS FOR THE LOT…
In Bell v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (No. 2: Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 650 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill considered the consequences where the claimant had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The defendant was ordered to pay an…
THE OFFERS WERE NOT PART 36 OFFERS: COURT COULD DETERMINE COSTS OF A PRELIMINARY TRIAL
In Holden v Holden & Anor [2024] EWHC 453 (Ch) Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered offers made by the defendant to see whether they were in fact Part 36 offers. He held that they…
PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT
In Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some complex costs orders in relation to the litigation. However the fundamental point was that parties that the claimants that failed…
ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 DOES NOT DISPLACE FIXED COSTS – NOR WERE THERE “EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES”: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
I am grateful to Simon Fisher, Costs Lawyer, of DWF for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Carter (as he then was) in the case of Bosley -v- Whitecroft, (County Court at Nottingham, 8th November 2023)…
PART 36 DOES NOT APPLY TO SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENTS: HIGH COURT DECISION (YESTERDAY)
In Zuhri v Vardags Ltd [2023] EWHC 3050 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard held that the provisions of CPR Part 36 do not apply to a Solicitors Act assessment of costs. However it may be relevant to Part 7 proceedings issued,…
FIXED COSTS AND PART 36: THE 35% GAIN IF A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN OFFER
The new rules introduce a fixed percentage as an “additional liability” in cases where a case is subject to fixed costs and a case has Part 36 costs consequences. Where a claimant has beaten their own offer and, normally, an…
PART 36 APPLIES TO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT MONEY: SILENCE DID NOT INDICATE A REFUSAL TO ENTER ADR: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLIED
In Jones v Tracey & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2256 (Ch) Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) found that Part 36 applied to cases that were not about money. It was held that the fact that the action would be…
AN OFFER WAS A VALID PART 36 OFFER: THE CLAIMANTS HAD DONE BETTER THAN THAT OFFER: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO FOLLOW
In Colicci & Ors v Grinberg & Anor (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 2075 (Ch) Recorder Mark Anderson KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that claimants had done better than their own Part 36 offers. He rejected the defendants’…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE WHERE CLAIMANT OFFERED TO ACCEPT 90% OF DAMAGES WAS A VALID PART 36 OFFER: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR THE DEFENDANT TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
In Chapman v Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1871 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill decided that a claimant’s offer to accept 90% of damages in a clinical negligence case, where there had been a trial…
WHAT HAPPENS TO INTEREST WHEN A DEFENDANT ACCEPTS A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER LATE? HIGH COURT DECISION
In MGS v University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 1547 (KB) Dexter Dias (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) rejected an argument that interest should run at 8% following the defendant’s late acceptance of the claimant’s…
SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: “PART OF THE POINT OF THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF PART 36 IS TO PREVENT THE SORT OF COSTS ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE MADE”
In Green v White Lantern Film (Britannica) Ltd [2023] EWHC 1391 (Ch) Mr Justice Michael Green considered arguments as to conducts and costs in a case where the claimant had beaten her own Part 36 offer. The normal Part 36…
CLAIMANT’S OFFER TO ACCEPT 99.9% OF THE CLAIM WAS A VALID PART 36 OFFER: BUT NORMAL PART 36 BENEFITS WOULD NOT APPLY
In Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd [2023] EWHC 1643 (TCC) Mr Alexander Nissen KC, held that a claimant’s offer to accept 99.9% of its claim was a valid Part 36 offer. However it was held to…
PART 36, LATE ACCEPTANCE AND QOCS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIDE AN UNUSUAL ISSUE: A COURT CANNOT MAKE AN ORDER PROTECTING A PARTY AGAINST A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE RULES
In Tabbitt v Clark [2023] EWCA Civ 744 the Court of Appeal rejected an application for a declaration that would have “future proofed” the claimant’s position in relation to liability for costs following late acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36…
ON THIS BLOG 10 YEARS AGO: PART 36; INTERIM PAYMENTS AND SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”
Now that the blog is 10 years (and 2 days) old it gives me an opportunity to look back at previous posts in a way that remains useful. Some (but not all) of the posts over the past decade stand…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WAS FOR 96% OF THE CLAIM: IT WAS HELD UNJUST FOR NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY
In Yieldpoint Stable Value Fund, LP v Kimura Commodity Trade Finance Fund Ltd [2023] EWHC 1512 (Comm) Stephen Houseman KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that it was not unjust to disallow the normal Part 36 consequences in…
CLAIMANT DID NOT RECEIVE PART 36 BENEFITS WHEN IT BEAT ITS OWN OFFER BY SEVEN PENCE: A REQUEST TO CAPITULATE IS NOT A GENUINE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Griffith in Gohil -v-Advantage Insurance Company (County Court at Birmingham, 11th May 2023) a copy of which is available here. Gohil v…
UPDATES ON PART 36: YOU’VE READ THE BLOG – NOW SEE THE MOVIES…
The update I gave on May 3 2023 for Kings Chambers Costs and Litigation Funding Team on Part 36 is now available on YouTube on this link THE WEBINAR The webinar goes through the significant cases on Part 36…
INTEREST ON DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CANNOT BE USED AS A MEANS OF PENALISING A DEFENDANT FOR POOR BEHAVIOUR: PART 36 ISSUES ALSO CONSIDERED
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Smout v Wulfrun Hotels Ltd [2023] EWHC 1128 (KB) considers the question of the use of interest as a penalty for the poor conduct of a defendant. The judge held that interest should…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 95: ACCEPTING A PART 36 OFFER WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DEFENDANT
This post arises out of an interesting question I was asked in a recent webinar on Part 36.* The questioner asked wanted to accept a Part 36 offer by one defendant and continue the action against others. The situation here…
PART 36: NORMAL COSTS PROVISIONS DISAPPLIED WHEN A CHILD ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER LATE:
Yesterday I gave a webinar on recent developments in Part 36*. Almost inevitably a new case was reported as soon as the webinar finished. Further that case addresses, directly, some of the interesting questions that arose in the webinar. In…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND PART 36: A USEFUL NOTE OF JUDGMENT
I am grateful to solicitor Bethan Parry from Browne Jacobson for sending me a note of the decision of HHJ Khan in Rix -v- Wall, the details of which are set out below. The note is interesting in that it…
PART 36 RULES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: WAS THE OFFER MADE IN TIME? WAS THE OFFER VALID? WHEN DOES A TRIAL “START”? WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?
The judgment of Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Mate v Mate & Ors [2023] EWHC 806 (Ch) involves a consideration of several issues in relation to Part 36. The judge decided that a Part 36…
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER: WEBINAR 30th MARCH 2023
The changes to the rules as to the set off of QOCS for action issued on or after the 6th April 2023 makes the proper assessment of Part 36 offers of even more importance. Not only will the costs incurred…
PART 36, COSTS: THE JUDGE WAS CORRECT NOT TO FIND THAT PART 36 CONSEQUENCES SHOULD NOT APPLY: A DISPUTE “CONDUCTED IN AN ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE WAY AND AT ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE COST”
In Lampor & Ors v Jones [2023] EWHC 667 (Ch) Mr Justice Mellor dismissed the appeals by both parties in relation to costs orders made following Part 36 offers. The trial judge had held that the defendant had failed to…
CLAIMANT HAD NOT “WON” UNDER PART 36 WHEN SHE HAD NOT BEATEN THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER ON DAMAGES BUT MADE AN OFFER IN RELATION TO LIABILITY: “BAFFLING” ARGUMENTS FAIL TO PREVAIL
I am grateful to barrister James Laughland for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Collins Rice in Mundy -v- TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 385 (CH)*. On appeal the judge rejected the claimant’s argument…
COST BITES 44: THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF CONDUCT, ARE PART 36 OFFERS SIGNIFICANT?
We are returning to the judgment of Mrs Justice Stacey in TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB). The judge made some observations in relation to the costs of the assessment process. In particular the interplay of CPR 47.20…
FIRST POST ON PART 36 IN 2023: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO BEAR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT CLAIMANTS’ PART 36 OFFER
In Von Westenholz & Ors v Gregson & Anor [2022] EWHC 3374 (Ch) Robin Vox, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that it was not unjust for the defendants to face the normal consequences of failing to beat…
You must be logged in to post a comment.