header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2011
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Costs—Order for costs—Indemnity costs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Southwark London Borough Council v IBM UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 653 (TCC), [2011] All ER (D) 261 (Mar)

Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J, 21 Mar 2011

The TCC has reiterated the principles on which the court will make an order for indemnity costs.

Nicholas Stewart QC (instructed by the Legal services Department of Southwark Borough Council) for the authority. Jeremy Nicholson QC and Terence Bergin (instructed by Blake Lapthorn) for the defendant.

The claimant local authority brought proceedings against the defendant company for damages in respect of, inter alia, breach of a contract in relation to software contractually supplied to the authority by the defendant company, which was to be provided in connection with the implementation of a master data management system. On 10 January 2011, the defendant’s solicitors made an offer to settle the action on the basis that each side pay its own costs. That offer was to remain open until 4pm on 14 January 2011. The authority rejected the offer, however, and the matter proceeded to trial.

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll