Amber v Stacey: CA 15 Nov 2000

The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s order was fundamentally sound but an adjustment was made to require the claimant to pay half of the defendant’s costs for a period after an offer had been made.


Lord Justice Simon Brown And Sir Anthony Evans


[2000] EWCA Civ 286, [2001] 2 All ER




England and Wales


CitedRe Elgindata Ltd (2) CA 15-Jul-1992
A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points.
Nourse LJ said that . .
CitedGwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 2) ChD 30-Mar-2000
The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd . .
CitedFord v GKR Construction and Others CA 22-Oct-1999
Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not . .

Cited by:

CitedCrouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147319