- Defendant awarded indemnity costs after claimant pursued claim based on untruth (BPN v Canham)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- Uncertainty of consequences following defendant offers
- What does ‘out of the norm’ mean?
- General discretion as to period
- Reasonable refusal to engage in mediation
- Ensuring experts remain aware of their duties to the court under CPR 35
- What was the background?
- The arguments on costs
- What did the court decide?
- After the offer
- Before the offer
- Payment on account of costs
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court awarded a defendant who succeeded after judgment against its own Part 36 offer costs on the indemnity basis both after the offer and for a period before the offer was made, in circumstances where it had also failed to engage in mediation until late in proceedings and then only limited in scope. This analysis considers the court’s discretion in awarding costs following a successful defendant offer and the interplay between the Part 36 and Part 44 when making that order. The case also looks at the effect of failing to mediate and the potential implications of experts who do not comply with their obligations under Part 35. Written by Jon Lord, associate at Weightmans LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial