The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank offer before proceedings but had refused to negotiate, even though she got more at trial. In matrimonial matters such an offer must be accompanied by full disclosure. An offer to settle made before an action and which was exceeded in the judgement for the plaintiff could still operate to deny the plaintiff costs where the court felt a reasonable plaintiff should have settled on that basis, or tried to negotiate.
Gazette 18-Nov-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, Times 09-Nov-1998,  2FCR 165,  EWCA Civ 1648
England and Wales
Cited – Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) CA 1-Apr-1991
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump . .
Cited – Alan Michael Sugar v Terence Frederick Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2) CA 17-Oct-1997
The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s substantial costs incurred . .
Cited – Calderbank v Calderbank CA 1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
Cited – McDonnell v McDonnell CA 1977
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .
Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Cited – C and H Engineering v F Klucznic and Sons Limited 1992
It is for a defendant to make a clear and unambiguous offer and nothing short of this will provide the protection against costs which is sought. . .
Cited – Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Nov-1992
In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded andpound;50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge . .
Cited – Singh v Parkfield Group Plc QBD 27-Jun-1994
An offer to settle must be backed by a payment into court in debt actions. The defendant here could have protected his position by a payment into court, and therefore a Calderbank offer was ineffective. . .
Cited – Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins CA 28-Jul-2003
The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in ‘big money’ cases.
Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2020; Ref: scu.145127