Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » Indemnity costs
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T SETTLE AFTER A MEDIATION: NO ISSUE BASED ORDER, INDEMNITY COSTS AND £127,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON’T SETTLE AFTER A MEDIATION: NO ISSUE BASED ORDER, INDEMNITY COSTS AND £127,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS

January 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Interim Payments

There is much for litigants and litigators to learn from the judgment on costs of James Mellor QC (sitting as a High Court judge)  in Cranstoun & Anor v Notta [2021] EWHC 133 (Ch).  The dangers of rejecting offers of…

INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WAS EXAMINED: IN ADDITION THERE IS GOING TO BE A SECOND MATCH...

INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WAS EXAMINED: IN ADDITION THERE IS GOING TO BE A SECOND MATCH…

November 26, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs

In Shearer v Neal [2020] EWHC 3148 (QB) Deputy Master Hill QC ordered that a debtor pay costs on the indemnity basis after she heard a Part 71 hearing. The case was also remitted to the High Court Judge on…

DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE CASE LED TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING PAID: MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF "NOT ACTING IN GOOD" FAITH: A SPECULATIVE & WEAK CASE: EXPERTS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT OF THE CASE LED TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING PAID: MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF “NOT ACTING IN GOOD” FAITH: A SPECULATIVE & WEAK CASE: EXPERTS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

September 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Experts

This is the third (but not the last) look at the judgment on costs  in Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387. The judge held that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that…

"OUR CASE WAS SO HOPELESS YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT": LOSING PARTY SHOULD PAY THE COSTS OF CLAIMANTS PURSUING SPECULATIVE CLAIM: YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT

“OUR CASE WAS SO HOPELESS YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT”: LOSING PARTY SHOULD PAY THE COSTS OF CLAIMANTS PURSUING SPECULATIVE CLAIM: YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT

July 3, 2020 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs

The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert today in  Bailey & Anorv Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1766 (QB) reflected the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of an action.  In this case the losing party was…

CLAIMANT BEATS OWN PART 36 OFFER: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD BECAUSE OF ITS CONDUCT

CLAIMANT BEATS OWN PART 36 OFFER: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD BECAUSE OF ITS CONDUCT

March 20, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Part 36

I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp   for drawing my attention to the decision today of Mr Justice Griffiths in DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 670 (QB).  The defendant was ordered to pay indemnity…

INDEMNITY COSTS ON THE GROUNDS OF CONDUCT: FAILURE TO BEAT A DEFENDANT'S PART 36 OFFER: A GARDEN THAT GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE...

INDEMNITY COSTS ON THE GROUNDS OF CONDUCT: FAILURE TO BEAT A DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER: A GARDEN THAT GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE…

February 6, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Part 36

The Court of Appeal decision in Lejonvarn v Burgess & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 114 is the second time this case, about a garden, has been on appeal.   On this occasion the Court of Appeal held that the claimants’ conduct…

ARGUE A WEAK CASE ON EACH AND EVERY POINT, GET INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST YOU

ARGUE A WEAK CASE ON EACH AND EVERY POINT, GET INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST YOU

December 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs

In Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3300 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare held that a claimant, who had pursued a weak case in a robust manner, should pay indemnity costs.   There is…

UNWARRANTED FRAUD ALLEGATION LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

UNWARRANTED FRAUD ALLEGATION LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

November 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs

In  Natixis SA v Marex Financial & Ors [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm) an award of indemnity costs was made against a party who had alleged fraud all the way up to closing submissions.   It highlights the dangers of pleading fraud…

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs

 In  Ford & Anor v Bennett & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1604 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs.  The judgment contains a lesson to “additional parties” to litigation. “Parties who…

AN OFFER THAT IMPOSES A CONDITION AS TO COSTS IS NOT A VALID PART 36 OFFER: MERE FAILURE TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS

AN OFFER THAT IMPOSES A CONDITION AS TO COSTS IS NOT A VALID PART 36 OFFER: MERE FAILURE TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS

June 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36

In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors (Costs) [2019] EWHC 1545 (Ch)  HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that an offer that attempted to limit costs was not a valid Part 36 offer.   The judge…

"THE CLAIMANTS MUST RUE THE DAY THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT'S OFFER": CLAIMANT TO PAY STANDARD COSTS AFTER REJECTING VERY EARLY PART 36 OFFER

“THE CLAIMANTS MUST RUE THE DAY THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER”: CLAIMANT TO PAY STANDARD COSTS AFTER REJECTING VERY EARLY PART 36 OFFER

March 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting

The costs judgment in  Burgess & Anor v Lejonvarn [2019] EWHC 369 (TCC) is probably a judgment that should be shown to all litigants.  The claimant rejected an offer of £25,000 and failed to beat that offer at trial.   The defendant’s…

INDEMNITY COSTS: CAN BE AWARDED WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES FOUR DAYS INTO A SIX WEEK TRIAL

INDEMNITY COSTS: CAN BE AWARDED WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES FOUR DAYS INTO A SIX WEEK TRIAL

October 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs

In Hosking & Anor v Apax Partners LLP & Ors [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard awarded indemnity costs in a case where the claimant discontinued four days into a six week trial. “My assessment is that this was high-risk…

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANTS IN GROUP LITIGATION ORDER:  INDEMNITY COSTS APPROPRIATE: AN EXHAUSTING READ

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANTS IN GROUP LITIGATION ORDER: INDEMNITY COSTS APPROPRIATE: AN EXHAUSTING READ

September 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs

The judgment of Master Fontaine in The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation [2018] EWHC 2308 (QB) is a warning to any litigator thinking of applying for a Group Litigation Order (“GLO”).  The rule is clear basically – get your case in…

CLAIMANT OBTAINS  INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER DEFENDANT'S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: "BIMBLING" AND OTHER TALES OF MODERN LITIGATION

CLAIMANT OBTAINS INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER DEFENDANT’S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: “BIMBLING” AND OTHER TALES OF MODERN LITIGATION

July 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Part 36

On the Leigh Day website there is a link to a judgment of H.H.J Alan Gore QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in the case of Holmes -v- West London Mental Health NHS Turst (29th June 2018).  The judge…

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF "ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR"

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF “ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR”

July 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs

Earlier posts have looked at the issue of aggressive correspondence. Others have looked at the issues of conduct, refusal to mediate and questions relating to indemnity costs. I am grateful to David Turner QC for drawing my attention to a…

MAKING UNWARRANTED ASSERTIONS LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS – AGAINST A SECRETARY OF STATE

April 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs

There are numerous cases where the courts have considered conduct that leads to indemnity costs. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Barry [2018] EWCA Civ 790 the Court of Appeal found that the Home Department’s conduct of an…

COURT OF APPEAL STATES INDEMNITY COSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED: SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BULLISH IN BRADFORD...

COURT OF APPEAL STATES INDEMNITY COSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED: SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BULLISH IN BRADFORD…

December 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs

It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to interfere with a discretionary order in relation to costs. It is even more unusual for the court to replace an order for costs on the standard basis with indemnity costs. This…

CLAIMANT ACCEPTING PART 36 OFFER LATE: COURT ORDERED INDEMNITY COSTS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN EXPIRY AND ACCEPTANCE

CLAIMANT ACCEPTING PART 36 OFFER LATE: COURT ORDERED INDEMNITY COSTS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN EXPIRY AND ACCEPTANCE

December 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36

In Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 3152 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered the court’s discretion when a claimant accepted a defendant’s Part 36 offer late. KEY POINTS A court had jurisdiction to vary the normal order for costs when a claimant…

COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUANCE VARIED: CLAIMANT TO PAY INDEMNITY NOT STANDARD COSTS: TWO RIGHT FEET BROUGHT THE WRONG ACTION

COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUANCE VARIED: CLAIMANT TO PAY INDEMNITY NOT STANDARD COSTS: TWO RIGHT FEET BROUGHT THE WRONG ACTION

November 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Civil evidence, Costs

When a claimant discontinues an action there is an automatic provision that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs (CPR 38.6). In Two Right Feet Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 1745 (Ch) Ms Sara Cockerill Q.C. made…

COSTS AFTER LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT'S PART 36 OFFER:  CLAIM £21.5 MILLION, ACCEPT £125,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR VISION ON DAMAGES FROM THE OUTSET

COSTS AFTER LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER: CLAIM £21.5 MILLION, ACCEPT £125,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR VISION ON DAMAGES FROM THE OUTSET

November 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Damages, Part 36

In Optical Express Ltd & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 2707 (QB) Mr Justice Warby  considered arguments in relation to costs after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer.  On the facts of that case he ordered that the…

1 2 3 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23,048 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: “A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE’S FUNCTION)
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN – AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT… & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

Top Posts & Pages

  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT... & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN - AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: "A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION)
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin