Ho v Adelekun

Ho v Adelekun

The offer letter did not contract out of the fixed costs regime; the reference to 'detailed assessment' was insufficient to displace the regime. The respondent is entitled only to fixed costs, and reallocation with retrospective disapplication of the fixed costs regime was not warranted.

Parties
Appellant (defendant): Mrs Siu Lai Ho; Respondent (claimant): Miss Seyi Adelekun
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Fixed Costs Regime, Part 36 Offers, Reallocation of Track
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Fixed Costs Regime Part 36 Offers Reallocation 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 5 Authorities cited 20 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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's 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 offer letter did not contract out of the fixed costs regime; the reference to 'detailed assessment' was insufficient to displace the regime. The respondent is entitled only to fixed costs, and reallocation with retrospective disapplication of the fixed costs regime was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent limited to fixed costs under CPR Part 45 Section IIIA
  • No reallocation to multi-track with retrospective costs direction