header-logo header-logo

29 May 2008 / Dr M Friston P Hughes Prof A Mcgee , M Smith
Issue: 7323 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs Law Brief

Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412, [2008] All ER (D) 295 (Apr)

DISPUTES OF PRINCIPLE

There has always been a problem when a party to litigation has refused to accept a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer made by the other side but narrowly beats it at a contested hearing. Arguments about the effect of CPR 36 or (if the offer is made in detailed assessment proceedings) CPR 47.18 and 19 follow, usually with each side claiming entitlement to the costs.
Naturally, the offeree will argue that the rules should be strict and that to exceed the offer even by a narrow margin justifies proceeding to court. The offeror will argue that the margin by which the offer has been beaten is plainly a waste of the (often very significant) costs expended to achieve that result. The resolution of such a dispute of principle is of huge significance.
The answer recently delivered by the

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll