D Pride and Partners (a firm) and others v Institute for Animal Health and others [2009] EWHC 1617 (QB); [2009] All ER (D) 84 (Jul)
It was not an advantage contemplated in the phrase ‘a judgment more advantageous’ in CPR Pt 36.14 if the claims advanced and settled in full were greater than the entitlement in law of each claimant in question. The overriding objective was for the court to deal with cases justly.
There might be cases where a claimant was able to persuade a defendant to pay the claimant more than the claimant’s legal entitlement, or to pay his legal entitlement more quickly than he would otherwise have done, in circumstances where the cost of contesting that entitlement would not be worth incurring. The provisions of Pt 36 should be construed as designed to protect a defendant from claims being pursued on such a basis and not to reward, in orders for costs, claimants who did pursue claims on such a basis
