JLE v Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Trust Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1582 (QB)

High Court restores Claimant‘s ’additional amount’ under CPR 36.17(4)

This was an appeal against the decision of Master McCloud not to award the claimant a 10% ‘additional amount’ under CPR 36.17(4) on grounds that it would be disproportionate and unjust to do so where the claimant had beaten its own offer by just £7,000 on a bill assessed at £431,813.05.

HORNE v PRESCOT (NO.1) LTD [2019] EWHC 1322 (QB)

Interest exclusive Part 36 Offers in detailed assessment proceedings

Disagreeing with Judge Robert Owen QC in Potter v Sally Montague (Nottingham CC), HHJ Nicol found that a Part 36 Offer made in proceedings and expressed to be exclusive of interest was a valid Part 36 Offer.

Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors (Costs) [2019] EWHC 1545 (Ch)

A costs-inclusive “Part 36 Offer” is NOT a Part 36 Offer

This was another in a line of cases which confirms that a Part 36 Offer cannot contain any provision as to costs. Disagreeing with Hildyard J in Proctor & Gamble Co v Svenska Celluslosa HHJ Paul Matthewsheld that he was bound by the Court of Appeal decisions in Mitchell v James and French v Groupama, neither of which had been cited to Hildyard J, that no term as to costs should be included in a Part 36 offer, even if to the benefit of the offeror.

white-anor-v-wincott-galliford-ltd

10% ‘additional amount’ denied following successful Part 36 Offer on hourly rates

This was a decision of Deputy Master Friston (author of Friston on Costs) in the Senior Courts Costs Office. Having determined that the Claimant had made and beaten a valid Part 36 Offer solely in relation to hourly rates the Master concluded that it would be unjust to award them an additional 10% uplift on the assessed profit costs.

INVISTA v BOTES AND OTHERS [2019] EWHC 1086 (Ch)

CPR 36.17(4) and the sometimes ‘unjust’ consequences of Part 36

In this rare costs decision following a breach of confidence claim from their ex-employers, a multinational corporation, the defendants successfully persuaded HHJ Birss that despite his finding that the claimant had achieved a more advantageous outcome than their own Part 36 offer under CPR 36.17(1)(b), it would be unjust pursuant to CPR 36.17(4) to order that the usual costs consequences should apply.