LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFERS: TWO CONTRASTING CASES & THE GREAT DEBATE

Civil Litigation Brief

There is an ongoing debate about whether the Defendant should, or does, face any adverse consequences when a Claimant’s Part 36 offer is accepted late.  I had a recent email from solicitor John McQuater of Atherton Godfrey.   Here I look at two contrasting cases and, with his permission,  John’s views – to add to the debate.

DECISION 1: LATE ACCEPTANCE  IN ITSELF DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES:

John was the solicitor in Sutherland -v- Khan (DJ Besford 21st April 2016) (This is from his note on the case).

“The defendant argued any order for costs should be on the standard basis and that that would, in any event, mean that Part 45.29B applied, limiting the claimant to fixed costs on the basis that these, under that rule, were “the only costs allowed”.  The defendant resisted the argument that the claimant should recover indemnity costs by relying on Fitzpatrick Contractors Limited –v-

View original post 1,512 more words

Advertisements
This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s