header-logo header-logo

Costs

24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Redhill v Rider Holdings Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 65 (Jan)

It was settled law that the automatic consequences of CPR Pt 36 did not apply to withdrawn offers. However, the court was required to consider any admissible offers to settle. Further, if a claimant should have accepted an offer within 21 days, then, on the face of it, the consequence should be that he was entitled to his costs up to the date when the offer should ordinarily have been accepted and the defendant was entitled to his costs thereafter. Usually the mere fact that an offer was withdrawn after the date when it should have been accepted should not lead to a different result. There might be circumstances where the court held that the claimant had acted reasonably in not accepting the offer within the 21-day period and where the offer was withdrawn before the time when the claimant should have accepted it. In that situation, the withdrawal of the offer might have a very real effect on the order that should be made in respect

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
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
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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll