Neave v Neave: CA 6 Feb 2003

The claimant sought return of vehicles from her son. Her compromise offer was rejected, but she bettered it at trial. She appealed refusal of her indemnity costs.
Held: The offer letter had not complied strictly with the requirements of the Rules, but the purpose of the rule was to encourage parties to compromise their litigation in order to save the resources of the court, irrespective of whether any litigation should have been commenced at all. The offer was clear and reasonable. Accordingly the irregularity was waived, and costs on an indemnity basis awarded from 21 days after the letter.
Lords Justice Potter, Chadwick and Tuckey
[2003] EWCA Civ 325, Gazette 10-Apr-2003
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.180721