Tag Archives: Indemnity costs

COSTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND THE EXPENSIVE CONSEQUENCES OF A SIEGE BASED MENTALITY

It is surprising how often cases that have been looked at because of issues in relation to the evidence at trial are reported again on the issue of costs.  The Ocensa Pipeline Group Litigation case is such an action.  I have looked at it earlier* in relation to the evidential issues.  There is now a […]

COSTS AT THE END OF A CASE: INDEMNITY COSTS, PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT AND GOING BEYOND THE COSTS BUDGET

In Barkhuysen -v- Hamilton [2016] EWHC 3371 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered matters relating to costs after a trial. The defendant’s conduct led to an order for indemnity costs being made. The judge also identified those areas in which the claimant could, properly, claim for items outside the costs budget. “If the defendant had dealt with […]

PART 36 CONSEQUENCES AND A FIXED COSTS REGIME: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MEET?

In the judgment today in Phonographic Performance Ltd -v- Raymond Hagan [2016] EWHC 3076 (IPEC) Judge Hacon considered the interaction between a fixed costs regime and Part 36. KEY POINTS The fixed cost rules in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) can be displaced by a Part 36 offer. If a defendant fails to beat […]

THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can dissociate himself from the conduct of those whom he has enabled to conduct the litigation […]

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

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 […]

PROVING THINGS 20: ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONDUCT HAVE TO BE PROVEN: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED

In Collins -v- Thanet District Council Collins anor v Thanet DC anor (19 4 16)(Jud) 2 [2016] EWHC 1008 (QB) His Honour Judge Yelton (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the evidence available to support allegations of misfeasance in public office. (I am grateful to John de Waal QC of Hardwicke Chambers for […]

PART 36 OFFER DID NOT ENCOMPASS PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT: COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS: A BAD DAY AT THE OFFICE

The Court of Appeal decision yesterday  in Littlestone -v- Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127 deals with important elements of Part 36 offers.  Not least the importance of stating, with absolute clarity, whether an offer is exclusive or inclusive of previous interim payments. “Thus identified, the issue continued to fester away, bedevilling attempts to settle, so […]