header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 May 2020 / Jack Ridgway
Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

A tale of two defendants & a failure to engage

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Jack Ridgway provides a lesson in conduct
  • A strong defence is no defence to failing to engage in ADR.
  • Failing to comply with directions to engage in ADR or file a witness statement explaining why, are not a mere formality.
  • Indemnity costs are the appropriate sanction.

In the recent decisions of BXB v Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania [2020] EWHC 656 (QB) and DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 670 (QB) the High Court ordered a part of the costs payable to the claimants to be paid on an indemnity basis.

The two cases are similar in key aspects:

  • Both claims were for historical sexual abuse for which, at trial, the defendants were found vicariously liable for the actions of their agent, servant, or employee.
  • Both claimants beat their own Pt 36 offers and were therefore entitled to indemnity costs from the expiry of their offers (CPR 36.17(4)(b)).
  • Both claimants sought the entirety of their
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll