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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll