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Although the claimant's withdrawn Part 36 offer did not trigger automatic costs consequences, it was a powerful discretionary factor. NIG's conduct, including its approach to coverage and allegations, justified indemnity costs for the claimant for a defined period. Costs were apportioned based on success in each action and the parties' conduct.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 730 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Nulty; Claimant/respondent: National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited (NIG); 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: claimant awarded costs of liability action up to 31 December 2010 on standard basis; NIG awarded 50% of coverage action costs up to 31 December 2010; claimant awarded indemnity costs for both actions from 1 January 2011 to 18 July 2011, and standard basis thereafter; interest on costs awarded at...
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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Nulty

Claimant/respondent

National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited (NIG)

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 orders following trial involving liability and insurance coverage disputes
  2. 2 Effect of withdrawn Part 36 offer on costs
  3. 3 Assessment of conduct of parties for indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant's withdrawn Part 36 offer did not trigger automatic costs consequences, it was a powerful discretionary factor. NIG's conduct, including its approach to coverage and allegations, justified indemnity costs for the claimant for a defined period. Costs were apportioned based on success in each action and the parties' conduct.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned: claimant awarded costs of liability action up to 31 December 2010 on standard basis; NIG awarded 50% of coverage action costs up to 31 December 2010; claimant awarded indemnity costs for both actions from 1 January 2011 to 18 July 2011, and standard basis thereafter; interest on costs awarded at...

Orders

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