Source: https://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/part-36-and-reserving-costs-to-end-of-case/
Timestamp: 2018-06-25 05:58:21
Document Index: 266243645

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

PART 36 AND RESERVING COSTS TO END OF CASE | Kerry Underwood
In Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster [2017] EWHC 1510 (Ch)
the Chancery Division of the High Court held that the existence of Part 36 offers by the Defendants meant that the issue of costs after a preliminary hearing had to be reserved until the end of the case.
The judge was unaware of terms of the offers but the very fact that they had been made meant that the preliminary trial costs must be reserved, even though there had been a lengthy trial on the preliminary issue.
CPR 36.16 provides:
The judge then applied CPR 36.16 to the facts of this case and said:
“Applying CPR 36.16 to this case, the position is as follows:
(1) The case has not “been decided”, for the purposes of rule 36.16(2), because there are issues in the case which remain to be decided; see Beasley v Alexander [2013] 1 WLR 762, a decision on an earlier version of Part 36 but which remains relevant in relation to the current version of Part 36;
(2) Although ITC is content for the court to be told the terms of the three Part 36 offers, the Defendants and, in particular, Jonathan Ferster, do not agree to that and so the case is not within rule 36.16(3)(c);
(3) A part of the case has been decided within rule 36.16(3)(d)(i);
(4) The Part 36 offers do not relate only to parts or issues that have been decided and so the case is not within rule 36.16(3)(d)(ii);
(5) I have been told of the existence of the Part 36 offers, in accordance with rule 36.16(4)(a);
(6) I have not been told the terms of the Part 36 offers, in accordance with rule 36.16(4)(b)”
The judge then explained that he knew that there were Part 36 offers that related not only to the decided issues and he was unaware, and was not entitled to know, whether those offers related only to issues which had not been decided or whether they related both to issues which had been decided and issues which had not been decided.
This follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in
HSS Group plc v BMB Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 3158
which concerned an earlier version of Part 36 but the judge took the view that the relevant reasoning in that case still applied.
I deal extensively with Part 36 in my book Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs, which runs to 3 volumes and 1,300 pages and is available for £80.00 from Amazon here or from me here.
« MCKENZIE ONLINE JUDGES COMING SOON
UNPAID COSTS AND LIENS »