Nulty & Anor v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2012] EWHC 730 (QB) (03 February 2012)

Nulty & Anor v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2012] EWHC 730 (QB) (03 February 2012)

Although the claimant's withdrawn Part 36 offer did not trigger automatic indemnity costs, it was a powerful discretionary factor. NIG's conduct, including unrealistic positions and unnecessary allegations, justified indemnity costs for the claimant for a defined period. Costs were apportioned to reflect mixed success and conduct, with interest rates set accordingly.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 730
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Nulty; Claimant/respondent: National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited; Defendant/appellant: Milton Keynes Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Trial Judgment / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs apportioned between parties with indemnity and standard basis periods; interest awarded on costs; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Interest on Costs, Coverage Dispute, Liability, Late Notification Prejudice
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Interest on Costs Coverage Dispute Liability +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Nulty

Claimant/respondent

National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited

Claimant/respondent

Milton Keynes Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Trial Judgment / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following mixed success in liability and coverage actions
  2. 2 Effect of withdrawn Part 36 offer on costs
  3. 3 Assessment of indemnity and standard basis costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant's withdrawn Part 36 offer did not trigger automatic indemnity costs, it was a powerful discretionary factor. NIG's conduct, including unrealistic positions and unnecessary allegations, justified indemnity costs for the claimant for a defined period. Costs were apportioned to reflect mixed success and conduct, with interest rates set accordingly.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned between parties with indemnity and standard basis periods; interest awarded on costs; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to have costs of liability action up to 31 December 2010 on standard basis, subject to assessment if not agreed.
  • Defendant (NIG) to have 50% of costs of coverage action up to 31 December 2010 on standard basis, subject to assessment if not agreed.