Cunningham v AST Express Ltd & Anor

Cunningham v AST Express Ltd & Anor

The Recorder erred by not giving proper effect to the defendant's pre-action offer, which should have been treated as a Part 36 offer. From 1 September 2006, the defendant was the successful party for costs purposes. The claimant's conduct, including advancing an exaggerated claim, did not justify a departure from the usual order. The defendant is entitled to his costs from 1 September 2006 onwards.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Cunningham; Appellants/defendants: AST Express Ltd & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers to Settle, Part 36 Offers, Exaggerated Claims
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Offers to Settle Part 36 Offers Exaggerated Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cunningham

Respondent/claimant

AST Express Ltd & Anr

Appellants/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in law or principle in his costs order after the claimant failed to beat the defendant's pre-action offer
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's offer should have been treated as a Part 36 offer for costs purposes
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct justified a departure from the usual costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred by not giving proper effect to the defendant's pre-action offer, which should have been treated as a Part 36 offer. From 1 September 2006, the defendant was the successful party for costs purposes. The claimant's conduct, including advancing an exaggerated claim, did not justify a departure from the usual order. The defendant is entitled to his costs from 1 September 2006 onwards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recorder's costs order set aside
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs up to 1 September 2006