News Category 3
Withdrawal of Part 36 Offers - Ezra Macdonald, Old Square Chambers
14/11/13. The Part 36 regime has, since its introduction, been a significant resource for both claimants and defendants, particularly in personal injury claims. Post-Jackson, however, it has become even more significant for personal injury claims. The increased significance arises because of the relationship between Part 36 and ‘qualified one-way costs shifting’ (QOCS). In short, QOCS provides costs protection for unsuccessful personal injury claimants, who are shielded from defendants’ costs unless certain conditions obtain (set out in CPR r 44.15). But QOCS provides this protection by restricting the enforceability of costs orders made against the claimant (r 44.14(1)). So a defendant who makes a Part 36 offer which is not beaten will benefit from the usual costs consequences, subject to cap on enforceability (equal to the amount of damages and interest awarded to the claimant). This provides some costs protection to the defendant, and also – perhaps more importantly – enables the defendant to exert substantial pressure to settle, as a claimant who goes to trial and fails to beat the Part 36 offer risks losing all of their damages, and still having to pay their own legal costs and disbursements, or a substantial ATE premium.
Practitioners will be familiar with the phenomenon of defective Part 36 offers, or Part 36 offers which are made but (unintentionally) never withdrawn. But what if a party wishes to retract a Part 36 offer shortly after making it – that is, within the ‘relevant period’?
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
Homes for Haringey v Fari: Committal for Contempt - David Melville QC, 39 Essex Street
12/11/13. On 31st October 2013 after a 5 day hearing, Mr and Mrs Fari were found guilty of contempt of court in their conduct of her personal injury claim. Mr Justice Spencer found to the criminal standard of proof that the Faris had interfered with the due administration of justice and verified false witness statements without an honest belief in their truth. On 8th November Mrs Fari was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and her husband was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for one year. Mrs Fari was granted bail pending an appeal. The judge found that Mrs Fari had...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/payphoto
Detailed Assessment of Costs after Summary Assessment - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane
10/11/13. The usual rule in many cases is that costs are summarily assessed by the judge at the conclusion of the trial or hearing. Often, however, proceedings run late and there is not time to give an ex tempore judgment, let alone deal with the issue of costs. Likewise, summary assessment may not be possible where there has been some failure to provide relevant information to allow it to take place...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/catenarymedia
Personal Injury Practices Safe 'At This Stage' - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
06/11/13. “Will they or won’t they?” has been the question for many personal injury lawyers wondering whether their practices were about to disappear into oblivion with the raising of the small claims limit. The question has now been answered: “not at this stage”. The government clearly thinks that it would be good to raise it. However it does not intend to do so ‘at this stage’ because it might have an adverse effect on victims of RTAs with genuine injuries. It wants to develop safeguards before an increase in the limit is considered...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/PeskyMonkey
Punching Inanimate Objects and Common Sense - Ian Clarke, 1 Chancery Lane
02/11/13.In 2010 Lewis Pierce was nine and a half years old and one day was playing at school with his younger brother George; both boys went over to a water fountain and George sprayed Lewis with water. George, seemingly not seeing the funny side then attempted to punch his brother, who being a sensible lad moved out of the way. Lewis missed George and ended up hitting the water fountain, cutting his right thumb. Consequently proceedings were started with the local authority as the Defendant, it being alleged that the water fountain had a sharp underside which amounted to a real and foreseeable risk...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/clubfoto
More Articles...
- What is a Montreal Convention "Accident"? Recent Court of Appeal Guidance - Matthew Chapman, 1 Chancery Lane
- Suspicions, Beliefs and Knowledge: the Date of Knowledge Test After AB v Ministry for Defence - Martin Canny, Barrister
- Farewell to Civil Actions for Breach of Stat. Duty: Revision To s.47 H&SW Act ’74 by #ERRAct In Force From 1st October - Jamie Clarke, Hardwicke
- Suitability and Work Equipment: a New Test and an Even Greater Burden on Employers? - Jack Harding, 1 Chancery Lane
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
