“…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.”
Following trial of a dispute about covenants in contracts, under which the claimant sought payment from the defendant, the Judge declared that on a true interpretation of the covenants no liability for payment had yet arisen.
In addition to the “interpretation issue” the defendants also run a series of other defences, including fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, estoppel, title to sue, and allegations that the original sales had been part of an unauthorised collective investment scheme.
These other defences failed.