WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AFTER A BUDGET IS CONFINED TO COURT FEES: DECISION TO ALTER BUDGET UPHELD
In Asghar -v- Bhatti[ 2017] EWHC 1702 (QB) Mr Justice Lewis considered an issue in relation to varying a budget that was confined to court fees. The court considered “change of circumstances” – this is also a case that shows…
MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A “TIME LIMITED” OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER
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…
INTEREST ON DAMAGES AFTER FAILING TO BEAT A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: THE AIM IS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD PRACTICE AND NOT SIMPLY TO COMPENSATE
In Ovm Petrom SA -v- Glencore International SA [2017] EWCA Civ 195 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision not to award 10% interest on damages in a case where a defendant failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer….
NO ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER WHEN UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT HAD TURNED DOWN A PART 36 OFFER OF £500,000
In Lyons -v- Fox Williams LLP [2017] EWHC 532 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered issues relating to costs after a claimant had been unsuccessful in a claim for professional negligence. THE CASE The claimant had been unsuccessful in a claim…
WITHDRAWAL OF PART 36 OFFER BY EMAIL: CPR 3.10 SAVES THE CLAIMANT
The change in the discount rate meant that many claimants withdraw Part 36 offers they had made. This has led to the question – is an email withdrawing an offer sufficient. I am grateful to Dominic Graham from Holmes &…
COSTS AFTER NOMINAL DAMAGES AND PART 36 OFFERS: THE CLAIMANTS WHO TURNED DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND GOT £2.00 INSTEAD
We looked at the decision of Mr Justice Leggatt in Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm) in an earlier post. The judge held that the defendants were in breach but that the claimants had suffered no loss….
COSTS, CONDUCT, PART 36, COSTS BUDGETING: THE SECOND JUDGMENT IN GIANT CAR LIMITED
The previous post looked at the judgment of Mr Stephen Furst QC in Car Giant Limited -v- the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hammersmith [2017] EWHC 197 (TCC). Here we look at the subsequent judgment on costs at [2017]…
CHANGES TO THE DISCOUNT RATE: WITHDRAWING PART 36 OFFERS: IMPORTANT FOR CLAIMANTS AND DEFENDANTS
I wrote yesterday of the practical steps that need to be taken by both parties as a result of the changes to the discount rate (that post is on the Zenith PI Blog and is available here). One point that…
CONSEQUENCES OF LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFERS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
There is a useful report on the PIC website of a case where a claimant obtained indemnity costs after the defendant’s late acceptance of its Part 36 offer The case of Car Craft Test Centre -v- Trotman a decision by…
COSTS AT THE END OF A CASE: INDEMNITY COSTS, PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT AND GOING BEYOND THE COSTS BUDGET
In Barkhuysen -v- Hamilton [2016] EWHC 3371 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered matters relating to costs after a trial. The defendant’s conduct led to an order for indemnity costs being made. The judge also identified those areas in which the claimant…
CLAIMANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER DOES NOT LEAD TO JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM: A MARATHON EFFORT BUT TO NO AVAIL
In Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt rejected an argument that the claimant’s acceptance of a Part 36 offer meant that a defendant was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim. KEY POINTS The…
PART 36 CONSEQUENCES AND A FIXED COSTS REGIME: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MEET?
In the judgment today in Phonographic Performance Ltd -v- Raymond Hagan [2016] EWHC 3076 (IPEC) Judge Hacon considered the interaction between a fixed costs regime and Part 36. KEY POINTS The fixed cost rules in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court…
PART 36: OFFER DID NOT COVER COSTS OF ADJUDICATIONS
In Wes Futures Limited -v- Allen Wilson Construction Limited [2016] EWHC 2863 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson considered the terms of an offer from the claimant that the Defendant accepted 10 months afterwards. Curiously it was the claimant that was arguing…
PART 36 OFFERS AND COSTS: COSTS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN OFFER HAS BEEN "BEATEN"
In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd -v- Providence Resources PLC [2016] EWHC 2611 (Comm) Mr Justice Popplewell considered the impact of a Part 36 offer in unusual circumstances. These circumstances led the court to consider whether the impact of costs should…
LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: TWO CONTRASTING CASES & THE GREAT DEBATE
There is an ongoing debate about whether the Defendant should, or does, face any adverse consequences when a Claimant’s Part 36 offer is accepted late. I had a recent email from solicitor John McQuater of Atherton Godfrey. Here I…
HAS A PART 36 OFFER BEEN BEATEN WHEN THE VALUE OF CURRENCY CHANGES? A HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt today in Novus Aviation Ltd -v- Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC (c) [2016] EWHC 1937 (Comm) contains some interesting observations on Part 36 offers. KEY POINTS A claimant “beat” its own Part 36 offer…
CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: WHEN HAS THE CLAIMANT BEATEN ITS OWN OFFER? AN INTERESTING QUESTION
The judgment of HH Judge Pelling QC in Purrunsing -v- A’Court & Co (a firm) [2016] EWHC 1582 (Ch) considers the impact of interest on a claimant’s Part 36 offer. Should the court simply compare the offer with the sum…
PART 36: ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AND INTEREST
In Bolt Burdon -v- Tariq [2016] EWHC 1507 (QB) Mr Justice Spencer considered the appropriate approach to additional liabilities where a claimant beats its own Part 36 offer and interest was awarded on a contractual basis. However the judgment appears…
PROVING THINGS 22: DAMAGES, MITIGATION , PART 36 (AND EVEN SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES)
The Court of Appeal decision today in Pawar -v- JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 contains some important lessons in relation to proving damages, mitigation of loss and Part 36 offers. “The fact that a claimant does not mitigate…
INDEMNITY COSTS ON APPEAL AFTER PART 36 OFFER
For the second time today I express my thanks to John McQuater. This time for drawing my attention to the Court of Appeal decision on costs in Summers -v- Bundy (11/02/2016)* This case shows the importance of making Part 36…