Partial Success, Conduct, Offers And Alleged Exaggeration

“…even if the more flexible approach contended for by the Claimant is applied, I do not consider it realistic to argue that the Claimant did better at trial than the offer. By going to trial he recovered £371,258.36 less in damages than the offer. Although by going to trial he also secured the peace of mind of the provisional damages for epilepsy, I accept the Second Defendant’s arguments that the additional £371,258.36 in the offer accommodated that claim. It follows that the Claimant did not beat the offer of £3,550,000 or the Second Defendant’s last offer £4,000,000.”

Calderbank Offers Not To Be Equated To Part 36 In Split Trial Cases

It is well-established that the existence of a Part 36 Offer in the case of a split hearing displaces the normal presumption that costs will be awarded at the end of the first stage. Instead, in such cases, the normal position is that, save in exceptional circumstances, costs would be reserved.

But what is the position where a Calderbank offer has been made, and the judge is told of its existence? Is the judge, in effect, bound to treat such an offer as equivalent to an offer under CPR 36 and defer a ruling on costs until the conclusion of all stages of the litigation?

Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd

Exaggeration and CPR 44.2(5)(d) | I’ve Told You A Million Times

Having made findings at trial that the claimant had exaggerated his personal injury claim, specifically in respect of loss of earnings, Mr Justice Farby had to determine if, and to what extent, this should be reflected in the award of costs.

Elan-Cane, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Costs Capping Orders And The Court’s Discretion As To Costs In Public Interest Judicial Review Proceedings

Prior to commencement of these public interest judicial review proceedings the parties had agreed that they recoverable costs on each side would be limited to the sum of £3,000. The proceedings were ultimately dismissed and the Appellant was ordered to pay 67% of the SSHD’s capped costs i.e. £2,000.

The Appellant appealed the substantive decision, unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal.

The SSHD cross appealed the order for costs on grounds that the judge erred in law by applying the reduction of 33% to the capped rather than the “much higher” actual costs of the SSHD, when calculating the amount of costs to be paid.


CPR 38.6: Discontinuance And Costs – The Legal Principles

This “long-running and ill-tempered dispute” between directors and shareholders of a residents association ended in September 2019 when the claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance.
Master Clark was asked to determine whether the court should exercise its power under CPR 38.6 to disapply the default rule that the claimant should pay the costs of the claim.
His judgment provides a useful look at the principles governing costs following discontinuance.


Indemnity Costs And The High Risk Of Pursuing A Weak Case

Mr Justice Teare determined an application for indemnity costs following the dismissal of the second claimant bank’s US$77 million claim for an indemnity from the defendant underwriter pursuant to a war risks insurance policy for the constructive total loss of the vessel BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO by piracy.