header-logo header-logo

29 January 2016
Issue: 7684 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 8, [2016] All ER (D) 100 (Jan)

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order as to costs made against the appellant in circumstances where he had beaten the offer to settle for “£18,500 net of [Compensation Recovery Unit]” that had been made to him by the respondent pursuant to CPR Pt 36. The offer had been a valid one under Pt 36, the recorder had been entitled to wait to assess costs until after the Compensation Recovery Unit had reviewed the appellant’s certificate of recoverable benefits and, on the facts, the recorder had erred in concluding that the appellant had not beaten the offer.

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll