Straker v Tudor Rose (A Firm)

Straker v Tudor Rose (A Firm)

The trial judge misapplied the general rule by failing to start from the presumption that the successful party should receive costs and by double-counting the claimant's pursuit of a failed issue. The claimant's failure to engage in pre-action negotiations warranted a discount, but not total deprivation of post-action costs. The appropriate order was to award the claimant 60% of his costs from the date of the Part 36 offer.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Straker; Respondent/defendant: Tudor Rose (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order varied
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Pre Action Protocols, Solicitors' Duties
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Part 36 Offers Pre Action Protocols Solicitors' Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Straker

Appellant/claimant

Tudor Rose (A Firm)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself in the exercise of discretion on costs after the claimant beat a Part 36 payment into court
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's failure to engage in pre-action negotiations justified depriving him of post-action costs despite being the successful party

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misapplied the general rule by failing to start from the presumption that the successful party should receive costs and by double-counting the claimant's pursuit of a failed issue. The claimant's failure to engage in pre-action negotiations warranted a discount, but not total deprivation of post-action costs. The appropriate order was to award the claimant 60% of his costs from the date of the Part 36 offer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order varied

Orders

  • Claimant to have 60% of his costs from the date of the Part 36 offer; judge's order for costs prior to that date to stand