Baron v Housmans Bookshop Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1877 (4 December 2002)

Baron v Housmans Bookshop Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1877 (4 December 2002)

The judge was entitled to exercise discretion in costs, considering the nature of the claim, the offers made, and the conduct of the parties; the informal offer did not have to be treated as a Part 36 offer, and the costs order was appropriate.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1877
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Alexander Baron; Defendant/respondent: Housmans Bookshop Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order) / Court of Appeal, Post Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Libel, Innocent Dissemination
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Libel Innocent Dissemination

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

Parties

Alexander Baron

Claimant/applicant

Housmans Bookshop Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order) / Court of Appeal, Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in law by equating an informal settlement offer to a Part 36 offer for the purposes of costs
  2. 2 Appropriateness of costs order following nominal damages in a libel action

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to exercise discretion in costs, considering the nature of the claim, the offers made, and the conduct of the parties; the informal offer did not have to be treated as a Part 36 offer, and the costs order was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused