header-logo header-logo

19 May 2011
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Costs

Barr and others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 4) [2011] EWHC 1107 (TCC), [2011] All ER (D) 77 (May)

Unreasonable conduct “to a high degree” was necessary for an order for indemnity costs. An order for indemnity costs was appropriate only where “there was some conduct or some circumstance which took the case out of the norm”. The pursuit of claims which could be fairly described as “speculative, weak, opportunistic or thin” gave rise to a high risk that, if the claim failed, indemnity costs would be ordered.

A claimant’s refusal of a defendant’s Pt 36 offer which the claimant subsequently failed to beat might, subject to the court’s discretion, be determinative of his liability to pay indemnity costs. However, it should not be thought that it was generally appropriate to condemn in indemnity costs those who declined reasonable settlement offers.
 

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

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten strengthens financial markets and funds group in London

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James expands national Serious Injury team with two new Partners

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW continues Paris office growth with public law Partner hire

NEWS
The Court of Appeal's decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has lifted months of uncertainty for Chartered Legal Executives while prompting a rethink of regulation and supervision
The assisted dying debate returns to Westminster as Lauren Edwards MP reintroduces legislation that stalled in the House of Lords last session despite clearing the Commons
A little-noticed provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has fundamentally expanded corporate criminal liability
Artificial intelligence is transforming legal practice, but careless reliance on it is creating growing professional risks
The law offers cohabiting couples surprisingly greater protection after one partner dies than when they separate during life
back-to-top-scroll