header-logo header-logo

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

Costs Law Brief

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll