Dutton & Ors v Minards & Ors

Dutton & Ors v Minards & Ors

The judge was entitled to find that, due to the uncertainty of the net value of the claim and the lack of a formulated counterclaim at the time of the Defendants' offer, it was not unjust to apply the default costs order under CPR Part 36.10(5). The judge's exercise of discretion was within the ambit of his authority and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Parties
Claimants: Dutton & Ors; Defendants: Minards & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Settlement, Judicial Discretion

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dutton & Ors

Claimants

Minards & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in applying the default costs order under CPR Part 36.10(5) after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' offer of 30 July 2010 was a valid Part 36 offer
  3. 3 Whether it was unjust to apply the default costs order in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that, due to the uncertainty of the net value of the claim and the lack of a formulated counterclaim at the time of the Defendants' offer, it was not unjust to apply the default costs order under CPR Part 36.10(5). The judge's exercise of discretion was within the ambit of his authority and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of the lower court as to costs stands.