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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll