A tale of two defendants & a failure to engage

11 May 2020 / Jack Ridgway

Categories: Features , Profession , Costs

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

A tale of two defendants & a failure to engage

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.

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Read All

Walk the Thames to provide a legal support lifeline

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

New partnership to help those navigating court alone

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

NLJ this week: Government for a crypto-fuelled, UK fintech-leading future?

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

NLJ this week: Costs, experts, judgecraft

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

NLJ this week: Will the Labour government reform ADR?

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

Error message

A tale of two defendants & a failure to engage

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn