header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 October 2012 / James Sharpe
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

A waiting game

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll