header-logo header-logo

24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Redhill v Rider Holdings Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 65 (Jan)

It was settled law that the automatic consequences of CPR Pt 36 did not apply to withdrawn offers. However, the court was required to consider any admissible offers to settle. Further, if a claimant should have accepted an offer within 21 days, then, on the face of it, the consequence should be that he was entitled to his costs up to the date when the offer should ordinarily have been accepted and the defendant was entitled to his costs thereafter. Usually the mere fact that an offer was withdrawn after the date when it should have been accepted should not lead to a different result. There might be circumstances where the court held that the claimant had acted reasonably in not accepting the offer within the 21-day period and where the offer was withdrawn before the time when the claimant should have accepted it. In that situation, the withdrawal of the offer might have a very real effect on the order that should be made in respect of costs.

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll