It would not be unjust to award the offeror all of its costs because had the offer been accepted no further costs would have been incurred thereafter. The fact that an offer had been withdrawn did not necessarily deprive the offer of effect on the question of costs. In such a case the defendant should have accepted the offer when it was available and having failed to do so should have appreciated the costs risk and taken protective steps by making a realistic Part 36 offer. However, depending up ...
|
What appear to be time limited offers can still constitute Part 36 offers Part 36 did not expressly exclude time limited offers however to constitute a Part 36 and have effect in terms of its costs consequences after trial, the offer had to be available for acceptance prior to trial. Therefore an offer that lapsed as a matter of its own terms could not have the Part 36 costs consequences and was incompatible with the Part 36 regime. It was reasonable to interpret a letter with the wording ...
|
When considering the extent and scope of the recovery of a CFA and ATE in an adjudication enforcement case a 20% rather than 100% uplift was awarded in circumstances in which the Claimant was virtually bound substantially to “win” its Claim, judged at the time when the CFA was entered into. There was little or no chance that the Claimant would actually wholly fail in the proceedings which had been issued. Similarly 20% of the ATE premium was ordered to be paid, there being no evidence from the C ...
|
Before Exercising The Power Under CPR r.3.1(3) To Attach Conditions To An Order A Court Should Identify The Purpose Of Imposing Such Conditions
The Court of Appeal held that it was wrong that parties be permitted to use r.3.1(3) rather than Part 25 as a means for obtaining security for costs. An Order should not be made under r.3.1(3) to protect a defendant from being unable to enforce a judgment for costs against a personal claimant, who was resident within the jurisdiction or in one of the other member states of the European Union and was impecunious and whose conduct of the proceedings might be open to criticism, unless one or more a ...
|
The Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2003 Did Not Failed to Adequately Implement Art. 1(4) Of The Second Motor Insurance Directive
Hickinbottom J, in dismissing the Claimant’s claim for Francovich Damages, held that the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2003 did not fail to adequately implement Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive, Council Directive 84/5/EEC, now the Consolidated Motor Insurance Directive 2009) and that her Claim for Damages could not succeed. (1) It was rejected that the inquisitorial nature of the scheme of the 2003 Agreement lacked independence in that the MIB was both the investigator of claim ...
|
In this statutory appeal, a pressure group known as Road Sense appealed against a decision of the Scottish Ministers as the trunk and special roads authority in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The appellants sought a Protective Expenses Order in their favour in the present motion. Road Sense were appealing against the Scottish Ministers' proposal for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route [AWPR] consisting of a new four lane highway on a designated route that would loop around the w ...
|
The petitioner had raised judicial review proceedings relating to plans to build a golf course and associated leisure development in an area along the coast to the north of Aberdeen. The petitioner sought judicial review of six grants of planning permission. The petitioner later abandoned her petition. In these proceedings, the petitioner was actively seeking to obtain legal aid and thereafter intended to apply for modification of her liability for expenses in these proceedings as an assi ...
|
This is an appeal against a decision of two costs officers appointed to assess costs incurred inproceedings before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (‘the House of Lords’). Itconsiders the approach which should be taken by courts when awarding costs, and costs officers when assessing costs, in cases raising issues about the environment where European law and the Aarhus Convention provide that, because of the nature of such legal proceedings, they should not be ‘prohibitively expensiv ...
|
Stadlen J struck out as an abuse of process a libel action in which even if the claimant were successful on liability, she would be awarded only very modest damages which would be so disproportionate to the money and time which would be incurred in respect of the litigation and consequent trial.
|
Stadlen J struck out as an abuse of process a libel action in which even if the claimant were successful on liability, she would be awarded only very modest damages which would be so disproportionate to the money and time which would be incurred in respect of the litigation and consequent trial.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |