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

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…

PART 36: NORMAL COSTS PROVISIONS DISAPPLIED WHEN A CHILD ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER LATE:

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…

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

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…

2022 IN REVIEW (IV): CASE OF THE YEAR: PART 36 OFFERS AND MISTAKES

Choosing a case of the year is never easy.  There are many significant judgments throughout a year all of which have an impact on civil procedure. However this year I am returning to a decision in January. The decision of…

WHEN THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANTS' PART 36 OFFER, BUT MONEY IS NOT DUE IMMEDIATELY: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

WHEN THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANTS’ PART 36 OFFER, BUT MONEY IS NOT DUE IMMEDIATELY: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Hildyard in Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3366 (Ch). Having determined that a valid and effective Part 36 offer had been made by…

PART 36 APPLIED TO COMPLEX OFFER: PART 36 WAS ENGAGED AND THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES FOLLOWED

PART 36 APPLIED TO COMPLEX OFFER: PART 36 WAS ENGAGED AND THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES FOLLOWED

In  Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3366 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard considered whether Part 36 applied to a complex offer made by the applicants.  This post looks at the judgment relating to…

ANOTHER QOCS AND PART 36 CASE: COURT MAKING ORDER UNDER PART 36 DID NOT LEAD TO QOCS PROTECTION BEING OUSTED

ANOTHER QOCS AND PART 36 CASE: COURT MAKING ORDER UNDER PART 36 DID NOT LEAD TO QOCS PROTECTION BEING OUSTED

In University Hospitals of Derby & Burton NHS Foundation Trust -v- Harrison [2022] EWCA Civ 1660 *  the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that QOCS protection was lost when the court was called upon to make an order…

PART 36: CONDUCT & REDUCTION OF CLAIMANT'S COSTS: A SETTLEMENT STRATEGY THAT WAS "COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC"

PART 36: CONDUCT & REDUCTION OF CLAIMANT’S COSTS: A SETTLEMENT STRATEGY THAT WAS “COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC”

In Moradi v The Home Office (Costs) [2022] EWHC 3125 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the appropriate costs consequences where a case settled on the eve of trial.  The defendant made a Part 36 offer…

PART 36 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: PRE-ISSUE OFFER WAS VALID; EMAIL SERVICE DID NOT NUGATE THE OFFER: DEFENDANT TO BEAR (MOST OF) THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES

PART 36 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: PRE-ISSUE OFFER WAS VALID; EMAIL SERVICE DID NOT NUGATE THE OFFER: DEFENDANT TO BEAR (MOST OF) THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES

There are some interesting discussions and findings in relation to the rules relating to Part 36 offers in the judgment of Vernonique Buehrelen KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Coldunell Ltd v Hotel Management International Ltd [2022] EWHC…

COST BITES 26: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT WAS FAR FROM PERFECT BUT DID NOT JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS

COST BITES 26: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT WAS FAR FROM PERFECT BUT DID NOT JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS

In Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2688 (KB)  HHJ Howells (sitting as a High Court Judge) did not accept the claimant’s argument that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that indemnity costs should be ordered….