- Indemnity costs under Part 36 and extended for refusing to engage in ADR (DSN v Blackpool Football Club)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant succeeded in an historic sexual abuse claim against the defendant. He also bettered his Part 36 offer to accept £10,000 made on 2 December 2019. At a costs hearing before the trial judge, Griffiths J, the real dispute between the parties was about the basis upon which costs should be paid. The claimant contended for indemnity costs on two bases. The first was that such costs are provided for under CPR 36.17(4). He also pursued indemnity costs on account of the defendant’s conduct who had repeatedly refused to engage in ADR. Written by Professor Dominic Regan, City Law School, London, and special advisor to the Association of Costs Lawyers.
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