‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant should be awarded full costs of bringing her case despite losing on one of the issues.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th April 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Judges can make issues-based costs orders under part 36 but only if it is unjust to deprive a successful claimant of all or part of their costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning such an order.’
Litigation Futures, 15th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has rejected jailed publicist Max Clifford’s attempt to limit his costs to only £5,000 in a privacy claim by making an “inadequate” Calderbank offer.’
Litigation Futures, 21st March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Defendants have failed in two separate recent attempts to persuade courts to interpret the part 36 costs rules in a way that suited them.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Littlestone and others v Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127
‘An admitted payment on account of a claim following a Part 36 offer to settle a claim of a higher amount was, in the absence of contrary agreement, made as much on account of the Part 36 offer as on account of the full sum claimed. It would be an absurdity for a defendant to be bound to pay an aggregated total of a Part 36 offer and an admissions payment that was larger than the total sum claimed (paras 23–24).’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In a claim which starts under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims (in this case the RTA Protocol), what happens when a Claimant obtains a judgment against a defendant which is at least as advantageous to them as the proposals contained in a Part 36 offer – does the Claimant recover fixed costs only, as per the regime, or does the Claimant recover costs on an indemnity basis?’
Zenith PI Blog, 1st March 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘On the 15th January 2016 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case of Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 8, which concerned the interpretation of an offer made by a Defendant to settle a claim for personal injury and associated losses.’
Park Square Barristers, 9th February 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A party who beats a part 36 offer in a case where fixed fees apply is eligible for indemnity costs, the Court of Appeal ruled today in the wake of conflicting decisions at circuit judge level.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘C made an application for indemnity costs following D’s failure to accept C’s Part 36 offer to settle liability at 95%. The offer had been made in a letter dated 30/1/15. D conceded liability some time prior to 17/12/15.’
Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘There is no longer a “near miss” rule for part 36 offers, appeal judges have made clear as they overturned a High Court decision which seemed to suggest that there was one.’
Litigation Futures, 15th February 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A part 36 offer which did not reflect an “available outcome of the litigation” was nonetheless valid, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 10th February 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal is to decide on whether a party who beats a part 36 offer in a case where fixed fees apply is eligible for indemnity costs as well.’
Litigation Futures, 18th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Courts must consider “all the circumstances” before deciding whether it would be unjust to impose costs penalties on claimants who fail to beat offers made under part 36, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A part 36 offer made by a defendant with a counterclaim is not “automatically to be regarded as a claimant’s offer”, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 7th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A regular issue that is being raised at MOJ Stage 3 hearings, particularly since the introduction of the 13th edition of the JC Guidelines: can parties make new offers in their Part B forms and benefit from the cost consequences of Part 36.29 for beating/matching them? This article aims to set out the relevant rules and paragraphs to determine this issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th November 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘This was a Court of Appeal hearing on an appeal on costs. The original case was the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of some £6,000 and interest. The landlord also claimed for physical damage to the property by the tenant amounting to some £20,000 and consequential loss of rent. The tenant agreed some £6,000 in rent arrears, but denied the property damage. The tenant counterclaimed for failure to repair the property and breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant also challenged the landlord’s identity as landlord and the interest rate claimed.’
Nearly Legal, 9th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court has overturned a ruling that found a defendant had agreed a Part 36 offer to settle.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This matter was an appeal from a senior cost Judge refusing to award an additional amount under CPR 36.14(3) (d) on a detailed assessment of costs. The law with which this judgement is concerned is CPR 36 as it was prior to its amendment on the 6th April 2015.’
Full story
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Senior Costs Judge, Master Gordon-Saker, has been overruled by the High Court after he denied a claimant who made a successful part 36 offer in detailed assessment proceedings the additional 10% uplift to which he was entitled.’
Litigation Futures, 11th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules encourages parties to settle their disputes. It does this by imposing sanctions if one party turns down an offer to settle but then doesn’t get a better result at trial. The rules are complex, so Andrew Mitchell takes a closer look at the latest changes to Part 36.’
Park Square Barristers, 1st April 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024