Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
36 offers in detailed assessment proceedings are not to be treated differently to such offers made in damages claims when it comes to determining whether the court should award an additional amount where the receiving party betters its own Part 36
offer, so held Slade J allowing an appeal against the decision of Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker.
(Cashman v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust  EWHC 1312 (QB))
Although this decision was considered under the Part 36 in force prior to 6 April 2015, the provisions under consideration (old Rule 36.14(3); current CPR 36.17(4)) have not changed; such that the authority in this judgment should apply in considering
CPR 36.17(4) in similar situations in future. Thus all references in this blog to Rule 36.14(3) can be considered to apply equally to CPR 36.17(4).
This judgment confirms that:
In essence, the Senior Costs Judge had found that ordering an additional amount would be unjust because he was concerned by the low level of the Part 36 offer (£152,500) as contrasted with the high level of costs in the Bill of Costs (£262,000)
and the costs as actually assessed (£173,600).
He did not hold back from stating that, were he able to under the rules, then he would have been willing to award an additional amount by applying the prescribed percentage (10%) to the difference between the Part 36 offer and the assessed costs. This
would have resulted in an additional amount of about £2,000. However, Rule 36.14(3)(d) does not permit this and, instead, the amount would have had to have been calculated by applying the prescribed percentage to the assessed costs, which would
have resulted in an award of about £17,000. This, the Senior Costs Judge thought, was unfair.
However, Mrs Justice Slade rejected this approach, noting, at para 22, that:
'In my judgment the Master erred in relying on the degree of reduction made on assessment to the costs claimed as rendering it unjust to make such an award in circumstances in which the Part 36 offer was lower than the sum at which the costs were assessed.'
She considered that in so doing the Senior Costs Judge had fallen into the temptation identified in Downing, of making an exception by not making an award under Rule 36.14(3)(d) not because he considered the making of such an award unjust, but
because he thought it unjust to make an award of the required amount, 10% of the assessed costs. The result was that he had ended up punishing the receiving party for having made what turned out to be a sensible offer, rather than penalising the paying
party for not having accepted the offer – this was not the intention behind Rule 36.14(3)(d).
(Downing v Peterborough & Stanford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 4216 (QB),  All ER (D) 239 (Dec))
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234