header-logo header-logo

18 June 2021 / Kris Kilsby
Issue: 7937 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

Pt 36: an offer you can’t refuse?

51271
Kris Kilsby outlines why a Pt 36 offer is the best method of protection during costs assessment proceedings
  • Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Pt 36 offers: background; parties’ submissions; decision reached.

The case of Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] Lexis Citation 51 has provided further judicial comment that a paying party should not expect to obtain a different order for costs at the conclusion of a provisional assessment hearing simply by relying on CPR 47.20(3)(b) when the paying party hasn’t beaten any previous offers made.

Background

The matter originated as the claimant, an Albanian national, had entered the country by lorry in December 2014 and was then detained by Thames Valley Police. Prior to her removal a claim was brought for unlawful detention. A settlement was reached in October 2019 where the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) agreed to pay damages of £12,500 plus costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

The claimant served a bill of £74,060.46.

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