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It was settled law that the automatic consequences of CPR Pt 36 did not apply to withdrawn offers.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 Usually the mere fact that an offer was withdrawn after the date when it should have been accepted should not lead to a different result.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held that the claimant had acted reasonably in not accepting the offer within the 21-day period and where the offer was withdrawn before the time when the claimant should have accepted it.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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll