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

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Magic Circle hire strengthens Sharpe Pritchard’s infrastructure finance capability

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin adds corporate crime specialist to growing dispute resolution team

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr Co strengthens private client team with partner appointment

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll