Source: https://tmcls.co.uk/hislop-v-perde-2018-ewca-civ-1726-23-july-2018/
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 19:35:55
Document Index: 142472071

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 45', 'art 36', 'ART 36', 'ART 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'EWCA ', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 45', 'art 36', 'art 45', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36']

Part 36 and late acceptance in fixed costs cases - TMC Legal Services Limited
In cases subject to the fixed costs regime in Section IIIA of Part 45, where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer many months after it was made, and the case does not then go on to trial, the case remains within the fixed costs regime and (save in exceptional circumstances) neither indemnity nor standard basis costs apply.
FIXED COSTS : CPR 45 : LATE ACCEPTANCE : PART 36 OFFER
HISLOP v PERDE (LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER IN FIXED COSTS CASES) : KEY POINT AND AUTHORITIES
Where a Part 36 offer is accepted within 21 days, in a case governed by the fixed costs regime, neither party can recover more or less by way of costs than is provided for by that fixed costs regime: Solomon v Cromwell Group PLC [2012] 1 WLR 1048.
Where a claim that is subject to the fixed costs regime goes on to trial and, by way of judgment, the claimant recovers more than a Part 36 offer, he or she is entitled to indemnity costs from the date that the offer became effective: Broadhurst v Tan [2016] EWCA Civ 94; [2016] 1 WLR 1928.
The applicable costs regime in fixed costs cases where there has been late acceptance is different to that described in Broadhurst v Tan and, on analysis, very similar to that explained in Solomon. [43]
The interaction between the fixed costs regime and Part 36 is different where the claimant is successful after trial (r.36.17 expressly preserved), as compared to where a Part 36 offer is accepted before trial (r.36.13 not preserved, and excluded by the use of the words ‘subject to’ and the other amendments referred to in paragraph 45 above). [47]
The correct interpretation of the rules is to say that, in a fixed costs case, r.36.20 applies where an offer is accepted late, and that r.36.13 does not apply at all.
The only way out of the regime (save in exceptional circumstances) is triggered where a claimant beats the Part 36 offer at trial (Broadhurst v Tan). [50]
If a case begins under the fixed costs regime then it should only be in exceptional circumstances that the parties are able to escape it. The whole point of the regime is to ensure that both sides begin and end the proceedings with the expectation that fixed costs is all that will be recoverable. [51]
In an exceptional case of delay, it may be possible for the claimant to escape the fixed costs regime under r.45.29J. In that way, there remains a clear incentive for a defendant not to delay in accepting a claimant’s Part 36 offer. [54]
A defendant’s late acceptance of a claimant’s Part 36 offer cannot always be regarded as an “exceptional circumstance”. What matters are the particular facts of each case. A long delay with no explanation may well be sufficient to trigger r.45.29J; a short delay with a reasonable explanation will not. [56]
A claimant is not required to demonstrate a precise causative link between the exceptional circumstances and any increased costs. A test requiring “exceptional circumstances” is already a high one. It is not a proper interpretation of the rules to suggest that there should be further obstacles placed in the way of a party who wishes to rely on that provision. [58]
These two appeals concerned the correct approach to costs in cases under the fixed costs regime in Section IIIA of Part 45 (low value road traffic accident (“RTA”) and employers’ liability/public liability (“EL/PL”) claims), where the defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer late i.e. after the “relevant period” under CPR 36.3(g)(i).
The claim in the Hislop action was started under the RTA PAP, and the claim in the Kaur action was started under the EL/PL PAP. Thus, Section IIIA of Part 45 applied to both claims, which fell within the fixed costs regime.
The question to be determined was:
Where a defendant accepts the claimant’s Part 36 offer many months after it was made, and the case does not then go on to trial: does the case remain within the fixed costs regime, or can the claimant escape its confines and recover standard or even indemnity costs from the date that the offer became effective?
Relief from sanctions Claimant's Part 36 Offer Good reason to depart Issue based costs order Standard basis CPR 36.17(4) Part 36 Legal aid Payments on account Proportionality Applications in detailed assessment proceedings Court of Protection Interest Form and layout of paper bills Detailed assessment Criminal proceedings CPR 38.6 Costs budgeting CPR 36 CPR 44.11 Final costs certificates Misconduct CFA Qualified one way costs shifting Indemnity Costs Success fees Solicitor and client Requests for a detailed assessment hearing Indemnity basis costs PD47 Legal aid cases CPR 36.17 CPR 44.2(8) Part 36 offer Criminal fees appeals Interest on costs QOCS Special circumstances Court of Protection cases Solicitor and client assessments Fixed costs Interim payments Costs orders against legally aided parties and/or the Lord Chancellor Hourly rates Costs of detailed assessment proceedings
CPR 36, CPR 45, Fixed costs, Late acceptance, Part 36
Miscertification of a costs budget, success fees, hourly rates and ‘good... When is a statute bill not a statute bill?