Codent Ltd v Lyson Ltd

Codent Ltd v Lyson Ltd

The trial judge erred in principle by treating the effect of the Calderbank offers as an all-or-nothing question and failing to consider an intermediate position. The offers, though not compliant with Part 36, were clear, genuine, and the defendants were good for the money. The only significant deficiency was the short period for acceptance. The just result was to give the offers substantial, but not full, effect by varying the costs order so that the claimants recover 70% of their costs up to and including the first day of trial, and the defendants recover their costs thereafter.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Codent Limited; Defendant/appellant: Lyson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order varied
Legal Topics
Calderbank Offers, Part 36 Offers, Costs Orders, Settlement Offers, Exercise of Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Calderbank Offers Part 36 Offers Costs Orders Settlement Offers Exercise of Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Codent Limited

Claimant/respondent

Lyson Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give effect to Calderbank offers in the costs order
  2. 2 Whether the judge's approach to the effect of non-Part 36 settlement offers was correct
  3. 3 Whether the costs order was manifestly unjust to the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in principle by treating the effect of the Calderbank offers as an all-or-nothing question and failing to consider an intermediate position. The offers, though not compliant with Part 36, were clear, genuine, and the defendants were good for the money. The only significant deficiency was the short period for acceptance. The just result was to give the offers substantial, but not full, effect by varying the costs order so that the claimants recover 70% of their costs up to and including the first day of trial, and the defendants recover their costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order varied

Orders

  • Claimants to have 70% of their costs up to and including 29th October 2002 (first day of trial)
  • Defendants to have their costs thereafter, including the period between 22nd December 2003 and early 2004