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…
COST BITES 135: COSTS OF SOLICITOR ATTENDING REHABILITATION CASE MANAGEMENTS – MAY BE RECOVERABLE, BUT IT DEPENDS…
In Hadley -v- Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ 250 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether a solicitor in a personal injury case could recover the cost of attending rehabilitation case meetings. It was decided that the costs are potentially recoverable….
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’…
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…
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…
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
NB THE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT PART 36 WERE DOUBTED AND “OVERRULED” BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13. SEE THE DISCUSSION IN THE POST ON THE CASE HERE I am grateful to barrister…
THE NEW RULES ON QOCS 3: WHAT INFORMED COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING: & TWO USEFUL WEBINARS
In the third in this series I thought it would be useful to highlight what informed commentators are saying in relation the new rules. I have gathered a range of views below. I have taken some key comments, however reading…
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…
PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”
In Holly Wright (& others) -v- Birmingham City Council District Judge Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge)* rejected an attempt by a defendant to obtain its costs where it accepted the claimants’ Part 36 offers late. The judge held that…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WHICH INVOLVED A 1.15% DISCOUNT WAS A GENUINE ONE:EVEN A NARROW MARGIN MEANS DEFENDANTS FACE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES
In Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that a claimant’s offer that was some 1.15% less than the sum awarded…
THE COURT CANNOT EXTEND TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION
A defendant is entitled to make an early Part 36 offer. This, undoubtedly causes difficulties for many claimants. The rules relating to late acceptance are fairly unsympathetic. Nor is it possible to for a claimant to make a prospective application…
AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COSTS WAS TO PAY FIXED COSTS ONLY:NOT DISPLACED BY LATER “PART 36” OFFER: DEFENDANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Luba QC, sitting with Costs Judge Rowley, in Soares -v- Wilson (27th May 2022). A copy of which is available Soares v Wilson…
DEFENDANTS WERE TOO LATE TO ACCEPT A PART 36 OFFER: THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ALSO DENIED
In Wirex Ltd v Cryptocarbon Global Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1161 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon determined some interesting issues in relation to attempts to accept Part 36 offers late and relief from sanctions. THE CASE The claimants had obtained a…
WHAT DO YOU DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER? WEBINAR 8th JULY 2022
In the recent case of MRA -v- The Educational Fellowships Ltd [2022] EWHC 1069 (QB) it was held that the claimant had to face the usual Part 36 consequences when a Part 36 offer was accepted late. The fact that there…
PART 36: JUDGES SHOULD NOT LET THEIR HEARTS RULE THEIR HEADS: CLAIMANT ACCEPTING AN OFFER LATE FACES FULL COSTS CONSEQUENCES THAT FLOW
In the judgment in MRA -v- The Education Fellowship Limited [2022] EWHC 1069 (QB). Master McCloud held that it was not unjust for the usual principles in relation to costs to apply following a claimant’s late acceptance of a defendant’s…
PART 36 BENEFITS PAID TO A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT: THE ISSUES CONSIDERED: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY
We are returning to the judgment in Ashford Borough Council & Anor v Wilson [2022] EWHC 988 (QB) Darryl Allen QC, sitting as a High Court judge. The earlier post looked at the issue of whether the defendant was bound by…
A PART 36 OFFER SHOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE: DEFENDANT LOOKING FOR STRAWS IN THE WIND
In FKJ v RVT & Ors [2022] EWHC 411 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld a decision that a claimant’s Part 36 offer could not be used in interlocutory proceedings. This is a decision on its own facts and the…
THE SOMETIMES CRUEL WORLD OF PART 36 OFFERS: INSPIRED GUESSWORK MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN A PARTY RECEIVES AN OFFER: A REMINDER OF THE CASE LAW
As part of a series of webinars by Kings Chambers Costs and Funding Group I recently recorded a webinar on Part 36 Recent cases and what they can teach us. One case, in particular, cause some comment and questions from…
WHAT HAPPENS AT A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS OF A TRIAL? ALSO THE COSTS AND INTEREST THAT FOLLOWS A PART 36 OFFER
We have already looked at the judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 in relation to the construction of Part 36 offers. This was…
A PART 36 OFFER CANNOT BE REDUCED BECAUSE OF A DEDUCTIBLE: AN INSURER IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OFFER IT MADE
I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the decision in Denton -v- Ms Amlin Underwriting (County Court at Doncaster 6th August 2021). It relates to an insurer defendant attempting to deduct an excess figure…
A DEFENDANT MAKES A PART 36 OFFER BUT IT CAN BE A “CLAIMANT’S” PART 36 OFFER WITH ALL THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES: A CASE ABOUT MISSING CASES
The judgment of HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) in The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd v London City Bond Ltd [2022] EWHC 98 (comm) contains a detailed consideration of several aspects of the law of costs. It is…
TRIALS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES, CALDERBANK OFFERS AND COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL REJECT SUBMISSION THAT “WOULD REPRESENT THE ANTITHESIS OF GOOD POLICY” & “REWARD BAD BEHAVIOUR”
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…
PART 36 OFFER STILL VALID EVEN IF SERVED BY EMAIL: DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO PAY THE USUAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES
In London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 3103 (Ch) Robin Vos, sitting as a High Court Judge, held that a Part 36 was still valid even if served by email. However, on the facts…
SECRETARY OF STATE DEFENDANT MUST PAY THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY AFTER IT FAILED TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER ON COSTS: THE “PUBLIC PURSE” HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS AS A LITIGANT
In TT, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC B21 (Costs) Deputy Master Campbell found that the Secretary of State was liable to pay an additional sum when it failed to beat…
PART 36: OFFERS MUST BE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH ALL THE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW ARE NOT IN PLACE: CONSEQUENCES ARE IMPOSED ON THE ACTUAL AMOUNT AWARDED NOT THE SUM THAT THE MAKER WOULD HAVE SETTLED FOR
I am grateful to Professor Dominic Regan for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr today in Equitix Eeef Biomass 2 Ltd v Fox & Ors [2021] EWHC 2781 (TCC). The judge rejected the notion that the…
JUDGE WAS CORRECT TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO FACE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES WHEN CLAIMANT BEAT THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION
There is another aspect of the judgment in Elgamal v Westminster City Council [2021] EWHC 2510 (QB) that needs consideration. The judgment on fundamental dishonesty was considered in the previous post. The defendant was unsuccessful in their appeal against the…
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DISPLACED PART 36 RULES: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ARE OFFERING: TROUBLE AT SEA WHEN TWO RULES COLLIDE
The judgment of Clare Ambrose (sitting as a High Court judge) in Falcon Trident Shipping Ltd v Levant Shipping Ltd [2021] EWHC 2204 (Comm) held that a settlement agreed drafted after acceptance of a Part 36 offer displaced the provisions…
“THE SOMETIMES HARSH, EVEN BRUTAL, DEFAULT CONSEQUENCES OF 36.17 MUST BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE”: RECOVER £10 IN DAMAGES AND STILL GET COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
In Shah & Anor v Shah & Anor [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld the decision of the trial judge that the defendants should bear the normal Part 36 consequences when the claimants had made a Part…
THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A “NEAR MISS” OFFER IS NOT ENOUGH
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.