The appellants contested an indemnity costs order made against them. The claimant had sought repayment from the estate of the deceased of repayment of fraudulent overclaims by deceased optician. An offer had been made to settle the action. The defendant described the Part 36 offer as ineffective, but refused to say how or why. The error was held to be a technicality, and costs awarded ignoring the error.
Held: Parties to litigation were required to assist the court in achieving the overriding objective. Active case management required the courts to encourage parties to co-operate in the conduct of proceedings. The defendants had been obliged to answer and assist the claimants, and their failure to do so could be taken into account on costs.
Judges:
Lightman J
Citations:
Times 25-Apr-2005, [2005] EWHC 320 (Ch), [2005] 3 All ER 274
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.223692
