Source: http://costsbarrister.co.uk/uncategorized/are-fixed-costs-optional-on-the-fast-track/?shared=email&msg=fail
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 12:37:28
Document Index: 359037662

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

Are fixed costs optional on the Fast Track? – Costs Barrister
I have very fond memories of part 45: right from the start of the introduction of fixed recoverable costs, it has proved a bone of contention and a fruitful source of satellite litigation. I am therefore unsurprised to note that the modern post 2013 incarnation is continuing to create problems.
The principal problem at the moment, concerns the relationship between part 36 and the fixed costs for claims which fall out of the various Portals, and which are prescribed by part 45.
If a claimant succeeds in beating his own part 36 offer at trial, is he still limited to the fixed costs prescribed by the rules, or does he receive indemnity costs, calculated and summarily assessed on the familiar hourly rate basis?
There is an intriguing ambiguity in the rules.
Rule 36.17 provides as follows:-
Rule 36.21 which must be read in conjunction with rule 36.17 reads:
(1) Where a claim no longer continues under the RTA or EL/PL Protocol pursuant to rule 45.29A(1), rule 36.17 applies with the following modifications.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), where the claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the defendant’s Protocol offer—
So far so straightforward: it would seem to suggest that where a case has fallen out of the Protocol, that indemnity costs will apply, unless the court deems it unjust that they do so.
However, if one turns to the latter rules of part 36, one notes that curiously, if a claimant beats his offer at a stage 3 hearing, that he does not get indemnity costs but only fixed, costs, per rule 36.29:
Yet, section II of part 36 is plainly only applicable to cases which conclude within the Protocol, as otherwise rules 36.17 and 36.21 could have no utility.
This would seem to suggest that there are two classes of part 36 offer: part 36 offers properly so called and Protocol offers, and the question of which applies to a case will hinge on the chances of it leaving the Protocol.
It follows that part 36 has a powerful incentive built into it: if a claimant can correctly pitch a part 36 offer prior to trial, then he will succeed in recovering indemnity costs: at least from the point 21 days after the offer is made.
This in turn raises the interesting question of how an entitlement to fixed costs to that point can be married up, with summarily assessed indemnity costs in the period up to trial.
Paying parties will doubtless point to the primacy of the restrictions in part 45 which might be thought to trump part 36 and argue this should have the effect of restricting costs to fixed costs in any event, but even those rules have an escape route based on exceptionality.
Other problems exist under part 45: for example where an action is brought by three jointly represented claimants eg: three passengers in the same vehicle. If their claims conclude at trial, do they get three lots of fixed costs as they would have under the former part 45 or only one set?
In practical terms on the Fast Track, calculating part 36 offers on litigated cases have now taken on an even greater imperative.