N J Rickard Limited v Holloway & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1631 (03 November 2015)

N J Rickard Limited v Holloway & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1631 (03 November 2015)

The landlord's 'drop hands' offer did not comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR Part 36 and could not attract its costs consequences. The District Judge erred in treating it as a valid Part 36 offer and in failing to properly consider the mixed outcome and conduct of the parties under CPR Part 44.2. A fair order was no order as to costs between landlord and tenants on claim and counterclaim, but tenants to pay £1,000 each to Mr Rickard and Mr Flamank for defending personal claims against them.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1631
Parties
Claimant/respondent: N J Rickard Limited; Defendant/appellant: Paul Holloway; Defendant/appellant: Laraine Holloway; Third Party/respondent: Nigel James Rickard; Third Party/respondent: Treve Flamank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Truro County Court (costs Order After Trial)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Counterclaims, Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Disrepair, Assessment of Costs, Mediation
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Costs Part 36 Offers Counterclaims Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Disrepair Assessment of Costs +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N J Rickard Limited

Claimant/respondent

Paul Holloway

Defendant/appellant

Laraine Holloway

Defendant/appellant

Nigel James Rickard

Third Party/respondent

Treve Flamank

Third Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Truro County Court (costs Order After Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'drop hands' offer was a valid Part 36 offer under the CPR
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge was wrong to order the tenants to pay all the landlord's costs, including indemnity costs, in light of the outcome and conduct of the case
  3. 3 What the appropriate costs order should have been given the mixed success and conduct of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's 'drop hands' offer did not comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR Part 36 and could not attract its costs consequences. The District Judge erred in treating it as a valid Part 36 offer and in failing to properly consider the mixed outcome and conduct of the parties under CPR Part 44.2. A fair order was no order as to costs between landlord and tenants on claim and counterclaim, but tenants to pay £1,000 each to Mr Rickard and Mr Flamank for defending personal claims against them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • No order as to costs between landlord and tenants on claim and counterclaim
  • Tenants to pay £1,000 each to Mr Rickard and Mr Flamank for costs of defending personal claims