79382ebe730845c3aecc2833468362a9.jpg?sfvrsn=bc9faf40_3)
Jack Ridgway provides a lesson in conduct
- A strong defence is no defence to failing to engage in ADR.
- Failing to comply with directions to engage in ADR or file a witness statement explaining why, are not a mere formality.
- Indemnity costs are the appropriate sanction.
In the recent decisions of BXB v Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania [2020] EWHC 656 (QB) and DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 670 (QB) the High Court ordered a part of the costs payable to the claimants to be paid on an indemnity basis.
The two cases are similar in key aspects:
- Both claims were for historical sexual abuse for which, at trial, the defendants were found vicariously liable for the actions of their agent, servant, or employee.
- Both claimants beat their own Pt 36 offers and were therefore entitled to indemnity costs from the expiry of their offers (CPR 36.17(4)(b)).
- Both claimants sought the entirety of their costs on the indemnity basis due to the defendant’s conduct.
The
