Part 36 Rules prevail – Letting the Lion out of the Cage

Part 36 Rules prevail – Letting the Lion out of the Cage For some time there has been a division of opinion on the recoverable costs of a Claimant in a “fixed costs” claim who obtains a Judgment more advantageous than his or her Part 36 offer. One train of thought was that if it was a fixed costs matter, then no more than fixed costs could ever be recoverable. The other train of thought was that the usual provisions of Part 36 would apply and that from the date of expiry of the “relevant period” of the Part 36 offer, the Claimant should be entitled to costs on the Indemnity Basis. These different thoughts found expression in 2 cases at first instance where in Broadhurst v Tan, HHJ Robinson s


ATE PREMIUMS – THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Our Director and one of our senior Advocates, Andrew Jones, recently appeared upon a Detailed Assessment, where we secured a huge reduction on the opponent’s claimed ATE premium from just under £55,700 to just over £10,700. This despite our opponent being represented by Costs Counsel and a representative of the Insurer attending the hearing. As many practitioners will know, achieving a reduction on such premiums is very difficult, particularly in the light of the oft quoted passage from Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2010] EWHC 1008(QB): “District judges and costs judges do not, as Lord Hoffmann observed in Callery v Gray… have the expertis

Escaping fixed recoverable costs – CPR 45.29

Escaping fixed recoverable costs. Amidst no little angst as to whether the costs recoverable under the new RTA and EL/PL protocols were sufficient to make conduct of such claims economically viable, there has perhaps been little attention paid to the provisions within the rules for escaping the application of fixed recoverable costs. In particular here we refer to the provisions for fixed recoverable costs where claims no longer continue under the protocols, as set out in CPR 45.29. That rule sets out the various fixed recoverable costs which are recoverable where Part 7 proceedings have to be issued in order to conclude the claim. Different amounts of costs are specified for each protocol w


PART 36 OFFERS – CAN YOU LOSE, BUT STILL WIN? There has been another interesting judgment on the costs consequences following the making of Part 36 offers. In Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Others v A J Insurance Service (a partnership) [2016] EWCA Civ 46, Tomlinson LJ heard an Appeal against a costs order which, on the face of it, treated an unsuccessful Part 36 offer made by a Defendant as if it had been successful. The Appeal Court found that the Trial Judge came to a decision “which was outside the bounds of reasonable decision-making, which was moreover in large part based upon an error of principle”. In brief, the owners of a nightclub suffered property loss and consequential business interrupt

Costs Blog

Disclaimer: The content of this blog is provided on a complimentary basis. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of SPH Costing Services Ltd. The content of the blog is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter or generally. Individual Legal advice should be sought from a Lawyer in relation to any specific case or issue. SPH Costing Services Ltd does not accept any responsibility for the correctness of this blog or for any consequences of relying on it.

© 2020 SPH Costing Services Ltd - Registered in England 3194408

Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen