Formidable obstacle of displacing the usual CPR 36.14 order on grounds it is unjust (Ted Baker v Axa Insurance)

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: now we know that Part 36 offers had been made in the Ted Baker v Axa litigation. In considering whether or not to make the usual order as to costs and interest under CPR 36.14 where the claimants failed to beat the defendants’ Part 36 offers, Eder J followed the dicta of Briggs J in Smith v Trafford Housing. In so doing, he refused to take as his starting point the fact that the defendants had lost on a number of issues. The starting point was for the claimants to overcome the ‘formidable obstacle’ of demonstrating that the CPR 36.14 order would be unjust in all the circumstances. The mere fact that a defendant fails on certain issues does not make it ‘unjust’ so as to displace the general rule, though equally the making of a Part 36 offer does not give a defendant carte blanche to run any...