header-logo header-logo

19 October 2012 / James Sharpe
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

A waiting game

istock_000017086765large_4

James Sharpe provides an update on costs protection & protected parties

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053, [2012] All ER (D) 16 (Aug) is an instance where the court departed from the normal costs rule in CPR 36.10(5) whereby the party accepting a Pt 36 offer after the 21-day period for its acceptance must bear his and the other party’s costs incurred subsequently.

In March 2003, the claimant was injured at age six in a road traffic accident. He sustained facial scarring and a severe head injury with damage to the frontal lobes of the brain. Medical evidence was obtained with a view to quantifying the claim, but the experts felt unable to predict the impact of the injury until the claimant matured. On 2 April 2009, the defendant made a pre-action CPR Pt 36 offer in the sum of £500,000 by way of full and final settlement of the claimant’s claim. Following this, counsel for the claimant advised that it was impossible to

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