Sleaford Building Services Limited v Isoplus Piping Systems Limited

Sleaford Building Services Limited v Isoplus Piping Systems Limited

The Part 36 offer was not a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings as it required payment of 99.99% of the claim, offering only a negligible concession on interest. Therefore, it would be unjust to grant the enhanced benefits under CPR r.36.17(4). However, as Sleaford had no real defence and delayed payment, indemnity costs are appropriate for the Part 7 proceedings.

Parties
Claimant/part 8 Claimant/part 7 Defendant: Sleaford Building Services Limited; Defendant/part 8 Defendant/part 7 Claimant: Isoplus Piping Systems Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (adjudication Enforcement) / Post Judgment Applications on Interest and Costs
Outcome
Application for enhanced Part 36 consequences refused; indemnity costs awarded to Isoplus.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Part 36 Offers, Costs, Interest
Civil Procedure Construction Law Adjudication Enforcement Part 36 Offers Costs Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sleaford Building Services Limited

Claimant/part 8 Claimant/part 7 Defendant

Isoplus Piping Systems Limited

Defendant/part 8 Defendant/part 7 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (adjudication Enforcement) / Post Judgment Applications on Interest and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Isoplus is entitled to enhanced interest, indemnity costs, and an additional amount under CPR r.36.17(4) based on its Part 36 offer
  2. 2 What costs order should be made in respect of the Part 7 proceedings and whether indemnity costs are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 36 offer was not a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings as it required payment of 99.99% of the claim, offering only a negligible concession on interest. Therefore, it would be unjust to grant the enhanced benefits under CPR r.36.17(4). However, as Sleaford had no real defence and delayed payment, indemnity costs are appropriate for the Part 7 proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for enhanced Part 36 consequences refused; indemnity costs awarded to Isoplus.

Orders

  • Isoplus's application for enhanced interest, indemnity costs, and additional amount under CPR r.36.17(4) is refused.
  • Sleaford to pay Isoplus's costs of the Part 7 proceedings on the indemnity basis.