header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Costs Law Brief

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
29 May 2008 / Dr M Friston P Hughes Prof A Mcgee , M Smith
Issue: 7323 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412, [2008] All ER (D) 295 (Apr)

DISPUTES OF PRINCIPLE

There has always been a problem when a party to litigation has refused to accept a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer made by the other side but narrowly beats it at a contested hearing. Arguments about the effect of CPR 36 or (if the offer is made in detailed assessment proceedings) CPR 47.18 and 19 follow, usually with each side claiming entitlement to the costs.
Naturally, the offeree will argue that the rules should be strict and that to exceed the offer even by a narrow margin justifies proceeding to court. The offeror will argue that the margin by which the offer has been beaten is plainly a waste of the (often very significant) costs expended to achieve that result. The resolution of such a dispute of principle is of huge significance.
The answer recently delivered by the Court of Appeal is that all the circumstances should be considered

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll