Marbrow v Sharpes Garden Services Ltd

The Cap On Recoverable Costs Of Costs Budgeting And Other Interesting Points

Master Gordon-Saker determined three issues which arose in the course of a , namely:

i) whether the caps on recoverable costs of budgeting provided by sub-paragraphs 7.2(a) and (b) of Practice Direction 3E of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 include or exclude value added tax;

ii) whether the Claimant was entitled to recover the sum of £2484.48 in respect of interest paid under a disbursement funding loan; and

iii) whether the Claimant’s entitlement to interest should run from 3 months after the date of the order for costs.

Nosworthy v Royal Bournemouth & Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Pre Judgment Interest On Costs Under CPR 44.2(6)(g) | A General Rule?

Master Brown (costs judge) declined to award pre judgment interest on the cost of a loan which the Claimant had taken out to fund the expense of an expert medical report in this clinical negligence case.

The Master rejected the notion that the Court in Jeffrey Jones and others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and others [2014] EWCA Civ 363 had intended to set a general rule that an award of interest on costs should be made in respect of the period before judgment and respectfully agreed with Dingemans J in Schumann and Anor v Veale Wasbrough [2013] EWHC 4070 QB that not only was such an award not the general rule in ordinary litigation and but that it was undesirable that there should be such a general rule.

All inclusive

An Interest Exclusive Part 36 Offer Is Not A Part 36 Offer

Can a Part 36 Offer which excludes interest be validly made either generally or in the context of proceedings?

It is been an issue on which a number of judges have held diverging views.

In the present case, His Honour Judge Dight CBE, upholding Deputy Master Campbell’s first instance decision, had concluded that an offer exclusive of interest cannot be a valid Part 36 offer.

In contrast, in a matter we reported in May, Horne v Prescot (No 1) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1322 (QB), Nicol J, dismissing an appeal from Master Nagalingam, held that, at least in the context of detailed assessment proceedings, an offer excluding interest can be an effective Part 36 offer.

So, what is the answer?

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.

CALONNE CONSTRUCTION LTD v DAWNUS SOUTHERN LTD [2019] EWCA CIV 754

Court of Appeal upholds validity of Part 36 Offer

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to the validity of a Part 36 Offer on grounds that i) it was made in respect of both a claim and a proposed counterclaim which had yet to be pleaded; and it ii) contained provision for interest to accrue at a particular rate after the expiry of the “Relevant Period”