header-logo header-logo

11 December 2019 / Matthew Hoe
Issue: 7868 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Part 36: fixed or not fixed?

13018
Matthew Hoe provides some clarity over the latest Part 36 conundrum on fixed costs

Lai Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 is the latest—alas, unsuccessful—attempt to get out of fixed costs in a personal injury claim. The Court of Appeal held, back in 2011, that it was possible in principle for parties to contract out of fixed costs. In Adelekun, the Court of Appeal considered specific circumstances in which the parties disagreed on whether they had contracted out of fixed costs under CPR 45 Section IIIA, which covers low value claims that have left the RTA or EL/PL (employers’ liability and public liability) Protocols or fall under the Package Travel Claims Protocol. On the facts, the court held that the parties had not contracted out of fixed costs, but the judgment contains salutary dicta for the future settlement of such claims.

The claim settled by way of Part 36, and the appeal turned on the wording of the offer. The defendant made the offer, using probably template

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll