header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A tale of two defendants & a failure to engage

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
11 May 2020 / Jack Ridgway
Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail
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
NLJ Career Profile: Kadie Bennett, Anthony Collins

NLJ Career Profile: Kadie Bennett, Anthony Collins

Kadie Bennett, senior associate at Anthony Collins and chair of the Resolution West Midlands Group, discusses her long-standing passion for family law and calls for unity in the profession

Osborne Clarke—Lara Burch

Osborne Clarke—Lara Burch

Firm appoints new UK senior partner for 2026

Keoghs—Louise Jackson & Katie Everson

Keoghs—Louise Jackson & Katie Everson

Healthcare and sports legal team expands in the north west

NEWS
Read All
Give your views on disclosure in court
Lawyers and users of the business and property courts are invited to share their views on disclosure, in particular the operation of PD 57AD and the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and artificial intelligence (AI)
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll