Part 36 offers, 99% offered, Indemnity Costs and Enhanced Interest on Costs awarded, Genuine Offer

News

22/06/2017

The Claimant was knocked off his motor cycle in Commercial Road, East London on the 2nd September 2015 by the Defendant who was driving a car straight across a traffic light controlled junction against a red light. A bus was turning in the junction and obscured the Defendants view as he passed through the junction.   The Defendant asserted that the Claimant was travelling too fast through the junction and contributed to the accident through his won negligence.  HHJ Robinson, sitting as a deputy High Court judge dealing with liability and causation Held: that there was no contributory negligence on the Claimant’s part and judgment was entered for 100%.  On costs the Claimant produced a part 36 offer made before trial in which he offered to settle liability at 99% giving away 1%.  The Defendant rejected the offer.  On the Claimant’s application under CPR36.17 the Judge ordered the Defendant to pay indemnity costs from 21 days after the part 36 offer was made and ordered the Defendant to pay interest on costs of 7.5% pa on those costs.  Considering the leading case of Huck v Robson [2002] EWCA civ 398 and the provisions of CPR 36.17(5), the Judge ruled that the 99% part 36 offer was a genuine attempt to settle the case because the quantum of the case was between £1 million and £3 million and so 1% represented a £10,000 – £30,000 saving had the Defendant accepted the offer.  In addition the Judge considered the stress of putting the Claimant through trial would have been avoided had the offer been accepted.

Andrew Ritchie QC appeared for the Claimant and it was instructed by Fletchers Solicitors, Southport.

Latest News & Events

Adam Dawson awarded MBE in King’s Birthday Honours List 2025

Chambers congratulates Adam Dawson upon being awarded an MBE for services to charity and service to the Jewish Community. For over 30 years Adam has been involved in the heart of the Jewish community, leading several charities and organisations. After a year as Chair of…

The Dekagram: 9th June 2025

This week Russell Wilcox and Thomas Clarke examine whether in applications to set aside default judgment there exists such a thing as a ‘co-defendant principle’; essential reading for all practitioners. Co-defendants and Applications to Set Aside: the More the Merrier? In the recent case of…

URS v BDW – The winner takes it all…

Introduction On Wednesday 21st of May, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the long-awaited case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21.  The judgment was awaited by almost all with an interest in construction law and related professional negligence. BDW…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2025

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)