Source: http://dev.gwslaw.co.uk/2013/03/part-36-offers-in-detailed-assesment-proceedings/
Timestamp: 2019-03-23 07:32:22
Document Index: 747674490

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36']

Part 36 offers and detailed assesment proceedings | Legal Costs Blog
This entry was posted in detailed assessment, Legal Costs by Simon Gibbs. Bookmark the permalink.
15 thoughts on “Part 36 offers and detailed assesment proceedings”
Anonymous on March 15, 2013 at 10:23 am said:
“Silly drip feeding of offers by receiving party” dont you mean paying party simon!
Simon Gibbs on March 15, 2013 at 10:35 am said:
Truly Eminent Costs Professional on March 15, 2013 at 11:18 am said:
I remember a certain ”Costs Lawyer” who used to advance a without prejudice offer upon serving the N252.
This makes no sense as the onus will always be on the paying party to either pay in full or make an offer.
Now things have become a little ”tasty” under CPR Part 36 – this surely puts even more pressure on paying rather than receiving parties?
Anonymous on March 15, 2013 at 11:27 am said:
Has anyone seen the press release today about the panel being set up to monitor the insurance companies to make sure they pass on the huge savings they are about to make to the consumer through their car insurance premiums. Making sure they dont actually just pocket the savings as profit and line their own pockets instead!
oh actually there is no panel being set up i was just dreaming!!! What a stitch up. Well done to them though. Classic – its like the great train robbery all over again!!!you watch the court system just fall apart! all those litigants in person waiting patiently in the reception to verbally abuse their opponants and the judge of course!
Whats next on the menu! oh yes lets increase the small claims limit and put every law firm out of business north of Milton Keynes!Dont you just love it!!
By the way isnt there supposed to be a new model form of bill and N260! were are they!!!
Anonymous on March 15, 2013 at 11:55 am said:
whats the point of a successful beaten offer, and indemnity costs , where the £75k ceiling on provisional assessment means that masses of cases will be stuck with a fees maximum of £1500.00 inclusive?
annon on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 pm said:
both sides of teh fence make stupid offers – its depends on the individuals involved
When you get two like minded costs draftsman who know parameters and litigation risk then you really can get a bill settled quickly and effeciently.
The problem arises when one sides really does believe their own claimant / defendant mantra and consider that the other side is always at fault. Fault occurs on both sides and there is always litigation risk, its just that some people do not and will not see it
Truly Eminent Costs Professional on March 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm said:
The great train robbery – it is ironic that simon gibbs ryhmes with ronnie biggs – just saying!
Simon Gibbs on March 15, 2013 at 12:53 pm said:
The point of the successful Part 36 if you are the receiving party is not the indemnty basis costs (probably worthless) but the 10% uplift on the costs as assessed (ie an uplift of up to £7,500).
Anon on March 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm said:
What is stopping a receiving party then presenting a part 36 offer to a paying party shortly before a DA hearing which is £50.00 above the Defendant’s best part 36 offer?
The Defendant will either have to accept the offer (and DA costs up until that date) or risk running the case to a DA hearing and risk the penaltise as listed by Simon.
Jackson said you now live or die by the Part 36 offer even if the receiving party succeeds by a tiny margin.
This has not been thought through at all.
Anonymous on March 15, 2013 at 3:36 pm said:
@ Simon 15.03 12:53pm No, Im sorry, but the rule at 47.15(5) is clear and emphatic ;-
(5) The court WILL not award more than £1,500 to any party in respect of the costs of the provisional assessment (my emphasis)
more tension in the rules obviously, but given 36.14(3) contains the caveat “unless the Court considers it unjust to do so”, and bearing in mind the Courts discretion under the Overiding Objective is to ensure claims are dealt with justly, I suggest it unlikely a DJ (or DDJ more likely) is going to award a Recieving Party anything over the £1500.00 maximum come what may
Simon Gibbs on March 15, 2013 at 3:56 pm said:
The 10% uplift is on the amount awarded in the original claim (here the bill as assessed). The 10% is not on the costs of the provisional assessment.
Anonymous on March 15, 2013 at 5:34 pm said:
its still an award of costs, as its based on the amount of the costs awarded (and therefore suffers the limitation in 47.15(5))
just as it would be extra damages, based upon the original damages award (and upon which there is no cap – different rules effecting it therefor)
Simon Gibbs on March 17, 2013 at 7:46 pm said:
Anonymous @ 5:34pm, you are continuing to confuse the two. CPR 47.15(5) says: “The court will not award more than £1,500 to any party in respect of the costs of the
provisional assessment.”
The 10% “reward” for winning on a Part 36 offer is not a part of the “costs of the provisional assessment”. It is an enhancement on the underlying amount awarded by the court.
To illustrate: a receiving party makes a Part 36 offer of £49,000. Their bill is assessed at £50,000 triggering the 10% uplift and giving them an extra £5,000 on top of the amount as assessed. Their detailed assessment costs amount to £2,000. Notwithstanding that their provisional assessment costs will be assessed on the indemnity basis those costs are limited to £1,500. The total recovered is therefore £56,500 (plus interest). At no stage is the amount of the “costs of the provisional assessment” allowed at over £1,500.
Anonymous on March 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm said:
@ Simon respectfully, I disagree
Peter dean on January 9, 2014 at 2:33 am said:
Just had a provisional assessment where costs assessed exceed receiving part part 36 offer. Is this extra 10% still applicable where a CFA was in place ?
Would appreciate any comments or specific regulation concerning this issue.