Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd & Anor

Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd & Anor

The court held that, although Saint-Gobain's Part 36 offer was very close to the sum awarded, it was not sufficient to trigger automatic costs consequences. There was no unreasonable refusal to negotiate by Hammersmatch, and Saint-Gobain's late articulation of its case made it difficult for Hammersmatch to assess the offer. The general rule should apply, but with a reduction to reflect Saint-Gobain's success on certain issues, particularly Hammersmatch's failed assertion of intention to carry out works. Accordingly, Saint-Gobain is to pay Hammersmatch 80% of its costs.

Parties
Claimant: Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Limited; First Defendant: Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Limited; Second Defendant: Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Dilapidations Claim / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Saint-Gobain to pay Hammersmatch 80% of its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Dilapidations, Part 36 Offers, Diminution in Value, Pre Action Conduct
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Costs Dilapidations Part 36 Offers Diminution in Value Pre Action Conduct

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Limited

Claimant

Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Limited

First Defendant

Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Dilapidations Claim / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be awarded full costs or whether costs should be reduced due to the proximity of the defendant's Part 36 offer to the judgment sum
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties, including pre-action conduct and negotiation, should affect the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the claimant exaggerated its claim and whether this should affect costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although Saint-Gobain's Part 36 offer was very close to the sum awarded, it was not sufficient to trigger automatic costs consequences. There was no unreasonable refusal to negotiate by Hammersmatch, and Saint-Gobain's late articulation of its case made it difficult for Hammersmatch to assess the offer. The general rule should apply, but with a reduction to reflect Saint-Gobain's success on certain issues, particularly Hammersmatch's failed assertion of intention to carry out works. Accordingly, Saint-Gobain is to pay Hammersmatch 80% of its costs.

Court Disposition

Saint-Gobain to pay Hammersmatch 80% of its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed.

Orders

  • Saint-Gobain to pay Hammersmatch 80% of its costs.
  • Costs to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed.