Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 (19 November 2019)

Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 (19 November 2019)

The Part 36 offer letter did not contract out of the fixed costs regime; the reference to detailed assessment was insufficient to displace the regime. The fixed costs regime applied and the respondent was not entitled to conventional costs. Re-allocation with retrospective disapplication of fixed costs was not warranted and would contradict the parties' agreement.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1988
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Mrs Siu Lai Ho; Respondent (claimant): Miss Seyi Adelekun
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (central London) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Fixed Costs Regime, Part 36 Offers, Re Allocation of Track
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Fixed Costs Regime Part 36 Offers Re Allocation of Track

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Siu Lai Ho

Appellant (defendant)

Miss Seyi Adelekun

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (central London) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's Part 36 offer letter contracted out of the fixed costs regime and offered conventional costs
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be re-allocated to the multi-track with retrospective disapplication of the fixed costs regime

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 36 offer letter did not contract out of the fixed costs regime; the reference to detailed assessment was insufficient to displace the regime. The fixed costs regime applied and the respondent was not entitled to conventional costs. Re-allocation with retrospective disapplication of fixed costs was not warranted and would contradict the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent entitled only to fixed costs under CPR Part 45 Section IIIA
  • No re-allocation to multi-track with retrospective costs order