Part 36 Offers Explained – Becket Chambers
‘This article explains the key points about Part 36 offers and provides top tips for avoiding common pitfalls.’
Becket Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
Category: part 36 offers
CA: Part 36 offer did not contract out of fixed costs – Litigation Futures
‘A defendant who settles a claim that leaves the RTA protocol with a part 36 offer including the usual wording about paying costs on the standard basis is not contracting out of fixed costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Appeal court re-establishes fixed costs for claim headed to multi-track – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that claimant solicitors should settle for fixed costs in a ruling that could send shivers through the claims sector.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th November 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Defendant pays an extra £65,000 after fractional Part 36 defeat – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A losing party has been ordered to pay an extra £65,000 after declining to settle a case over a difference amounting to less than £5,000.’
Law Society's Gazette, 15th November 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Settling for nil damages can still be a genuine Part 36 offer – MR v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 QB – Zenith PI
‘The appellant was arrested on suspicion of harassment but was later released without charge, after police had taken fingerprints and DNA samples. The appellant issued a claim for false imprisonment and assault.’
Zenith PI, 5th September 2019
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
Offer to settle for no damages was valid under part 36 – Litigation Futures
‘An offer to settle a case for no damages but an admission of liability was a valid part 36 offer and it was not unjust to apply the usual consequences of beating an offer when the claimant won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 28th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Part 36 consequences “are severable”, High Court rules – Litigation Futures
‘The court can decide it is unjust to award some, but not all, of the consequences of beating a part 36 offer, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 25th June 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Judge refuses uplift after successful part 36 offer on hourly rates – Litigation Futures
‘A judge has refused to award claimants an uplift on their costs after beating a part 36 offer restricted just to the hourly rates in dispute.’
Litigation Futures, 29th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Part 36 offer that included unpleaded counterclaim ruled valid – Litigation Futures
‘A part 36 offer made by a defendant in respect of both a claim and a proposed counterclaim which has yet to be pleaded is valid, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 7th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Fixed fees can apply to claim which settled for £42k, court rules – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The courts have made clear they will be prepared to apply fixed costs to cases which have long since breached the £25,000 limit. Two judgments that have emerged over the past week show examples of judges considering fixed recoverable costs where the personal injury claims had exited the pre-action protocol.’
Law Society's Gazette, 24th April 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
High Court dispenses with electronic bill – Litigation Futures
‘A High Court judge has relieved a claimant who won a trial in January from having to produce an electronic bill for the work undertaken since 6 April 2018.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd April 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Appeal refused over claimant who issued just to recover costs – Litigation Futures
‘The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal a High Court decision that found a claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs.’
Litigation Futures, 9th January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Part 36 penalties “severable”, says judge as she refuses 10% uplift – Litigation Futures
‘The consequences of beating a part 36 offer are “severable” and each should be assessed against the test of whether it would be unjust to award them, a judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Court cannot order costs on account after part 36 acceptance – Litigation Futures
‘The courts have no power to order the payment of costs on account after a part 36 offer is accepted, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 14th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Defendants pay heavy price for refusing to discuss costs – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Defendants in a professional negligence claim who rejected the chance to settle costs have been left nursing a bill at least three times higher than it might have been.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd November 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
High Court backs claimant who issued just to recover costs – Litigation Futures
‘A claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs where the defendant “acted unfairly” by trying to settle pre-action but refusing to pay any costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Part 36 offer not a “trump card” to thwart court orders – Litigation Futures
‘A part 36 offer is not “some form of trump card” which overrides previous court orders, a High Court judge has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 30th October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Part 36: no presumption in favour of indemnity costs on late acceptance – Hailsham Chambers
‘Where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer after expiry of the 21 day period, many claimants (and legal commentators) have argued that the claimant should be entitled to recover indemnity costs from the expiry of the relevant period, just as they would if the case had gone to trial and the same result had been achieved. This argument has been particularly attractive to claimants where fixed costs apply, as an order for indemnity costs will allow the claimant to recover more than fixed costs. A number of County Court Judges and District Judges have accepted this argument in PI actions to which fixed costs apply.’
Hailsham Chambers, 23rd July 2018
Costs blow for tardy defendant with ‘worse than hopeless’ case – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Civil claimants despairing at Part 36 costs rules have a ray of hope following a court’s decision to swing the pendulum their way again. In Holmes v West London Mental Health NHS Trust the High Court ruled last week that a defendant party who waited 15 months to accept a Part 36 offer must pay indemnity costs covering the period of delay.’
Law Society's Gazette, 3rd August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
