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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll