header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Costs—Order for costs—Discretion

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
23 June 2011
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 2227 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 303 (Jul)

Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Ramsey, 24 Jul 2013

The principle in para 72(vii) of Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2008] All ER (D) 04 (Oct) (Multiplex), namely that “if (a) one party makes an offer under Pt 36 or an admissible offer within r 44.3(4)(c) which is nearly but not quite sufficient, and (b) the other party rejects that offer outright without any attempt to negotiate, then it might be appropriate to penalise the second party in costs” no longer applies to CPR Pt 36 and should not be applied as a special “near miss” rule through CPR 44.2(4)(c). If there was an unreasonable refusal to negotiate then that was a matter which came within the circumstances which the court could take into account under CPR 44.2(4) and sub-para (a) in particular. 

Judith Jackson QC (instructed by Thomas Eggar LLP) for claimant. Nicholas

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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
NLJ this week: Trauma-informed pro bono
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
NLJ this week: When leases last hours
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: EU law trumps sports arbitration
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll