Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Calderbank offers
COST BITES 147: WHO IS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY? WHAT SUMS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR LOSING ON CERTAIN POINTS?  DOES A CALDERBANK OFFER MATTER?

COST BITES 147: WHO IS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY? WHAT SUMS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR LOSING ON CERTAIN POINTS? DOES A CALDERBANK OFFER MATTER?

April 17, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

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,…

TRIALS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES, CALDERBANK OFFERS AND COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL REJECT SUBMISSION THAT "WOULD REPRESENT THE ANTITHESIS OF GOOD POLICY" & "REWARD BAD BEHAVIOUR"

TRIALS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES, CALDERBANK OFFERS AND COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL REJECT SUBMISSION THAT “WOULD REPRESENT THE ANTITHESIS OF GOOD POLICY” & “REWARD BAD BEHAVIOUR”

November 29, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In the judgment in  McKeown v Langer [2021] EWCA Civ 1792 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a Calderbank offer had the same effect as a Part 36 offer when a court was considering the issue of costs…

ACCEPTING AN OFFER DURING A HEARING: CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES, NOT PART 36, APPLY: OFFER DID NOT LAPSE AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT

ACCEPTING AN OFFER DURING A HEARING: CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES, NOT PART 36, APPLY: OFFER DID NOT LAPSE AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT

May 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

Offers of settlement can, and often are, made outside the ambit of Part 36.  In MEF v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1300 (QB) Mr Justice Morris considered issues relating to late acceptance of offers.  The case shows…

AN ATTEMPT TO LIMIT COSTS MAKES A CALDERBANK OFFER INEFFECTIVE

March 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Burrell -v- Clifford [2016] EWHC 578 (Ch) Mr R Spearman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) decided that an offer which was equivalent to the sum awarded in damages was not effective because the defendant also…

A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER DOES NOT ATTRACT INDEMNITY COSTS: GULATI -v- MGN

June 25, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Gulati -v- MGN [2015] EWHC 1805 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann considered whether indemnity costs should be awarded in circumstances where a Part 36 offer was withdrawn in one case and a “Calderbank” offer made in the other. KEY POINTS…

CALDERBANK OFFER HAD NO EFFECT ON OUTCOME IN RELATION TO COSTS:

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Damages, Members Content

Some parties make “Calderbank” offers in place of Part 36 offers. The effect of a Calderbank offer and whether it should affect an order for costs was considered by the Court of Appeal today in Coward -v- Phaesetos [2014] EWCA…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENDANTS: AN APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE DEFENDED BY “BARE ASSERTION”
  • COST BITES 433: WHAT ARE “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” WHEN YOU WANT TO VARY A COSTS BUDGET? WHY THERE WERE NO SUCH DEVELOPMENTS HERE
  • COST BITES 432: THE COURT CANNOT ALTER THE COSTS BUDGET UNLESS THERE IS ARE “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” : HIGH COURT DECISION
  • COST BITES 431: A CASE WHERE BOTH SIDES NEEDED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS SO THAT THEY COULD ARGUE ISSUES OF COSTS: THE PROBLEMS FLOCK TOGETHER…
  • SERVICE POINTS 53: HOW DOES THE COURT PROTECT THE POSITION OF A PARTY WHO WANTS TO APPEAL DECISION IN RELATION TO JURISDICTION BUT RISKS “ACCEPTING” JURISDICTION IN THE MEANTIME? A PUZZLE SOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST THE STRIKING OUT OF A CASE BECAUSE A WITNESS STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED: THE SMALL CLAIMS PROTOCOL IS (VERY) DIFFERENT...
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE: FINDINGS MADE ON KEY POINTS THAT WERE NOT PUT TO THE WITNESS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL (AUGUST 2017)
FAILING TO GIVE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: THE JUDGE MAY THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON HERE...
COST BITES 429: A REMINDER THAT A CLAIMANT IS STILL LIABLE TO PAY COSTS EVEN IF PROCEEDINGS ARE NEVER SERVED: SOMETHING ABOUT PRE-ACTION CONDUCT TOO...
EXPERT WATCH 64: LOOKING AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN EXPERT REPORTING BADLY

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. 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
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.