Hardy v Sutherland (t/a David Sutherland Architects) & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 976 (13 June 2001)

Hardy v Sutherland (t/a David Sutherland Architects) & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 976 (13 June 2001)

Recorder's order insufficiently recognised the distinction between Part 36 offers and payments into court; costs should be apportioned to reflect clarity and certainty provided by payment into court; claimant entitled to costs up to 4th May, but only 50% of costs between 4th May and 24th August.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 976
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Avis Hardy; First Defendant/respondent: David Sutherland t/a David Sutherland Architects; Second Defendant/respondent: Thomas King t/a TDK Construction
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Buxton County Court Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal against first defendant allowed in part; appeal against second defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Expert Evidence, Settlement, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Part 36 Offers Expert Evidence Settlement Judicial 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avis Hardy

Claimant/appellant

David Sutherland t/a David Sutherland Architects

First Defendant/respondent

Thomas King t/a TDK Construction

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Buxton County Court Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should recover costs up to the date of payment into court or only up to the date of the offer
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should recover 100% or 75% of costs against defendants
  3. 3 Whether costs relating to expert reports should be recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

Recorder's order insufficiently recognised the distinction between Part 36 offers and payments into court; costs should be apportioned to reflect clarity and certainty provided by payment into court; claimant entitled to costs up to 4th May, but only 50% of costs between 4th May and 24th August.

Court Disposition

Appeal against first defendant allowed in part; appeal against second defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Between 4th May and 24th August, first defendant recovers only 50% of costs as against claimant.
  • Provision regarding costs of Mr Miller's report remains; second defendant not liable for those costs.