A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant’s pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes.
Held: Costs remain at the discretion of the judge, and a judge’s decision should not be interfered with without clear justification. Nevertheless, the court may take into account the circumstances which have given rise to a change of mind, and each decision must be assessed within its own factual matrix. In this case no error had been identified in the judge’s reasoning, and the appeal failed.
No general rule that claimant is ‘successful party’ if (a) defendant makes Part 36 payment which claimant does not accept, (b) defendant makes significant amendment to case on basis of information always available to him, (c) claimant then accepts payment
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Sedley
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 22, [2002] 2 All ER 838, [2002] 1 WLR 2438, [2002] CPLR 385
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Johnsey Estates and Limited v Secretary of State for Environment CA 11-Apr-2001
Chadwick LJ: ‘The principles applicable in the present case may, I think, be summarised as follows: (i) costs cannot be recovered except under an order of the court; (ii) the question whether to make any order as to costs – and, if so, what order – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167901