header-logo header-logo

19 October 2012 / James Sharpe
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

A waiting game

istock_000017086765large_4

James Sharpe provides an update on costs protection & protected parties

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053, [2012] All ER (D) 16 (Aug) is an instance where the court departed from the normal costs rule in CPR 36.10(5) whereby the party accepting a Pt 36 offer after the 21-day period for its acceptance must bear his and the other party’s costs incurred subsequently.

In March 2003, the claimant was injured at age six in a road traffic accident. He sustained facial scarring and a severe head injury with damage to the frontal lobes of the brain. Medical evidence was obtained with a view to quantifying the claim, but the experts felt unable to predict the impact of the injury until the claimant matured. On 2 April 2009, the defendant made a pre-action CPR Pt 36 offer in the sum of £500,000 by way of full and final settlement of the claimant’s claim. Following this,

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll