Mummery J set out the correct approach to interpretation of double taxation agreements as laid down in Fothergill. He said ‘(1) It is necessary to look first for a clear meaning of the words used in the relevant article of the convention, bearing in . .
The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered the offer. It was noted that an offer on costs was to … Continue reading Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag: CA 17 Jun 2003
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. … Continue reading McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3): CA 12 Jun 2001
The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis. Held: The rules were generally incompatible with offers which included costs. Their purpose was to direct costs after a case … Continue reading Mitchell and Others v James and Others: CA 12 Jul 2002
The claimant had offered to accept damages subject to a 50% finding of contributory negligence. The defendant did not accept. That was the exact order made. The claimant appealed refusal to award her costs on the standard basis to the time for acceptance of the offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis. Held: The judge … Continue reading Read v Edmed: QBD 8 Dec 2004
The award of costs under Rule 36.21 on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal, and the court must look at what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Lord Woolf said: ‘However, it would be wrong to regard the rule [36.21] as producing penal consequences. An order for indemnity costs does not … Continue reading Petrograde Inc v Texaco Ltd: CA 23 May 2000
The new civil procedure rules could impose sanctions or penalties on parties who failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the rules. The word ‘interest’ when allowing a judge to award interest by way of a penalty for the failure to accept a reasonable offer was not the same as the interest awarded … Continue reading All-In-One Design and Build Ltd v Motcomb Estates Ltd and Another: QBD 4 Apr 2000
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any condemnation of the plaintiff. Nor was it wrong to … Continue reading McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4): CA 3 Jul 2001
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of moral condemnation was required. The defendant had made … Continue reading Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor: CA 2002
