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
Steven Ball, barrister at Magdalen Chambers and counsel for the appellant, says the judgment in Patience v Tanner confirms that the trial judge’s discretion in considering the effect of offers is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with established principles.
In Patience v Tanner and another  EWCA Civ 158, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) held that the judge had been justified to have held that the appellant should not have his costs paid after 29 May 2014, which was the date on which
an offer to settle lapsed. In the circumstances, however, the court found that the judge was neither entitled nor obliged to go further to order the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs thereafter. The appeal would be allowed to the extent
that there would be ‘no order as to costs’ after 29 May 2016.
The case concerns the remit of the trial judge’s discretion in relation to costs when considering the effect of offers made in the course of proceedings.
The court decided the judge had erred in principle in ordering the claimant to pay the defendants’ (defendant and Part 20 defendant) costs of the proceedings from the expiration date of an offer made by the Part 20 defendant, but not accepted by
the claimant. Although the offer had agreed to give the claimant the substantive remedy he was claiming in the proceedings, it had been silent as to costs.
However, although the claimant had technically beaten the offer at trial (by being awarded costs up to the date of the offer) the Court of Appeal still felt the claimant should have accepted the offer since to do so would still have entitled him to argue
for his costs and it was realistic that the case would then have been brought to an economical conclusion. Nevertheless, the Part 20 defendant was equally wrong to have withdrawn the offer and, together with the defendant, to have continued to contest
liability. Accordingly, the appropriate order was that the parties bear their own costs from the date the offer could have been accepted.
The judgment confirms that the trial judge’s discretion in considering the effect of offers is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with established principles. However, the decision also shows how success at a technical level is decreasing
in importance when it comes to costs awards and may give way in appropriate circumstances to wider considerations of conducting litigation in the most cost-effective manner.
The circumstances of this case were quite unusual and it is not possible to draw any more general principle beyond what is stated above.
Steven Ball has expertise and extensive experience in most areas of contract and property litigation representing corporate and individual clients. He also brings considerable background knowledge to cases involving technical subject matter such as construction and electrical or mechanical engineering. Steven acts regularly in partnership disputes and trust matters and in disputes representing executors and beneficiaries of the estates of deceased persons, including contentious probate matters.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
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