French v Groupama Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1119 (11 October 2011)

French v Groupama Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1119 (11 October 2011)

The Groupama offers did not comply with the requirements for a quasi-Part 36 offer under Stokes, were privileged when made, and only became admissible for costs after judgment by agreement. The judge erred in treating them as open and applying Stokes. The proper approach was to exercise the court's discretion under CPR Part 44, considering all circumstances, including the claimant's status as a litigant in person, the time-limited and privileged nature of the offers, and the conduct of both parties. Fairness required that there be no order as to costs, except that the claimant should have her costs, if any, up to 21 days after the February 2007 offer.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1119
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Heather French; Defendant / Respondent: Groupama Insurance Company Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Settlement Offers, CPR Part 36, Privilege and Admissibility of Settlement Offers, Discretion Under CPR Part 44
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Settlement Offers CPR Part 36 Privilege and Admissibility of Settlement Offers Discretion Under CPR Part 44

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather French

Claimant / Appellant

Groupama Insurance Company Ltd

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-litigation settlement offers not compliant with CPR Part 36 should have the same costs consequences as a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in treating privileged settlement offers as open and applying Stokes quasi-Part 36 principles
  3. 3 How the court's discretion under CPR Part 44 should be exercised in light of such offers

Ratio Decidendi

The Groupama offers did not comply with the requirements for a quasi-Part 36 offer under Stokes, were privileged when made, and only became admissible for costs after judgment by agreement. The judge erred in treating them as open and applying Stokes. The proper approach was to exercise the court's discretion under CPR Part 44, considering all circumstances, including the claimant's status as a litigant in person, the time-limited and privileged nature of the offers, and the conduct of both parties. Fairness required that there be no order as to costs, except that the claimant should have her costs, if any, up to 21 days after the February 2007 offer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judge's order that Miss French pay all Groupama's costs quashed
  • No order as to costs, except that Groupama to pay Miss French's costs, if any, up to 21 days after the February 2007 offer