Summary of Recent Cases – Costs


It was not unjust to award an offeror all its costs from 21 days after it had been made because if the offer had been made no further costs would have been incurred

Owners and/or Bareboat Charters and/or Sub Bareboat Charterers of the Ship Samco Europe v Owners of the ship MSC Prestige, QBD (Admlty), 30/06/11

It would not be unjust to award the offeror all of its costs because had the offer been accepted no further costs would have been incurred thereafter. The fact that an offer had been withdrawn did not necessarily deprive the offer of effect on the question of costs. In such a case the defendant should have accepted the offer when it was available and having failed to do so should have appreciated the costs risk and taken protective steps by making a realistic Part 36 offer. However, depending upon the circumstances of the case the withdrawal of an offer might have a real effect on the appropriate order as to costs. The offer ought to have been accepted within the period of 21 days after it had been made. The offer was not accepted for over 16 months. The fact that it was withdrawn two months before trial did not make it unjust to order that the offeror should get all of their costs from 21 days after the offer was made.

When the Defendant was the successful party in the litigation given the Claimant received only £2,000, £525,000 being the agreed value of the claim prior to trial, it was appropriate to reduce their costs by 25% to reflect their conduct.

(1) Medway Primary Care Trust (2) Ashiq Hussain v Sebastian Marcus (2011), CA, 29/06/11

The Defendant Trust and Locum GP were the successful parties in the litigation given that the Claimant only received £2,000 for limited PSLA and failed on the issue of causation. There should have been a reduction from the Defendant’s costs in that that the Claimant did succeed to a very small extent. The Trust had not conceded liability until a very late stage and their case as to breach of duty was not withdrawn until just before trial. There should not have been a discount because there was no Part 36 Offer made, but it was relevant that the trust might have written a Calderbank letter offering £3,000 plus costs proportionate to recovery.

July 27, 2011 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases