Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Offers of Settlement
COST BITES 75: LIABILITY TO COSTS: RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY COSTS BUDGET: WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER AFFECTS LIABILITY TO COSTS MADE PRIOR TO THAT OFFER

COST BITES 75: LIABILITY TO COSTS: RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY COSTS BUDGET: WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER AFFECTS LIABILITY TO COSTS MADE PRIOR TO THAT OFFER

April 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

 We looked at the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wigan Borough Council v Scullindale Global Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 779 (Ch) in an earlier post on Proving Things.  There is a subsequent…

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A "NEAR MISS" OFFER IS NOT ENOUGH

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A “NEAR MISS” OFFER IS NOT ENOUGH

June 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC B5 (Costs) Deputy Costs Judge Campbell rejected an argument that a “different order” for costs should be made following an assessment of costs.  The paying party had made…

COSTS: "ROLLED UP" OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING COSTS DID NOT GIVE A DEFENDANT ANY PROTECTION

COSTS: “ROLLED UP” OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING COSTS DID NOT GIVE A DEFENDANT ANY PROTECTION

November 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Comberg v VivoPower International Services Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2787 (QB) contains many interesting observations in relation to damages, mitigation and costs.  Here I want to isolate one element – the fact…

MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A "TIME LIMITED" OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER

MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A “TIME LIMITED” OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER

April 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

There may be tactical advantages to making a “time limited” offer, or withdrawing a Part 36 offer after 21 days.  However this can backfire badly.  We have already looked at the decision in Thakkar -v- Singh [2017] EWCA 117 in…

COURT OF APPEAL: REFUSAL TO ENGAGE WITH AN OPEN OFFER  OF SETTLEMENT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

COURT OF APPEAL: REFUSAL TO ENGAGE WITH AN OPEN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

March 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Litigants in person, Members Content, Risks of litigation

In Balk -v- Otkrite International Investment [2017] EWCA the Court of Appeal was highly critical of a litigant’s failure to respond to an open offer of settlement of appeal. The failure to engage  with an open offer of settlement amounted…

AN OFFER IS NOT AN ADMISSION: HIGH COURT REJECTS APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT ON ADMISSIONS

October 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Admissions, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

The previous post looked at the decision Mr Justice Coulson in The Dorchester Group Ltd -v- Kier Construction Limited [2015] EWHC 3051 (TCC) in relation to disclosure.  Here we look at the decision in relation to the claimant’s application for…

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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)

Top Posts

  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE "ON DEMAND"
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: "VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL"
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..

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.