Summary of Recent Cases – Costs

Court awards 80% costs of a strike-out application withdrawn on the day of the hearing

Colthurst v Myers, QBD, 25/10/12

It was held that it was right that the costs situation was not the same as if the Defendant had pursued its application and won. Without hearing argument on the substantive claim and dealing with the costs only, it was right that the Claimant paid some costs to the Defendant. It was clear that something a little less than the totality was appropriate but the situation had arisen because of the Claimant’s failures. The Claimant was therefore ordered to pay 80% of the Defendant’s costs.


CPR r.36.2(2)(c) did not mandate that for a Claimant to make a valid Part 36 offer, he had to make the payment of his costs by the Defendant a condition of his offer 


Procter & Gamble Co v (1) Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA (2) SCA Hygiene Products Manchester Ltd, Ch D, [2012] EWHC 2839 (Ch), 23/10/12

CPR r.36.2(2)(c) did not mandate that for a Claimant to make a valid Part 36 offer, he had to make the payment of his costs by the Defendant a condition of his offer. It meant that if a claimant sought his costs, he had to specify a period of not less than 21 days in which they were to be paid.

November 27, 2012 · Editorial Team · Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases