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
Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll