Amber v Stacey [2000] EWCA Civ 286 (15 November 2000)

Amber v Stacey [2000] EWCA Civ 286 (15 November 2000)

The Recorder erred in law by treating the Defendant's written offer of 1 October 1997 as equivalent to a Part 36 payment into court for costs purposes. While the Claimant's conduct justified depriving him of his own costs for the period, it was wrong to order him to pay the Defendant's full costs for that period. The appropriate order was for the Claimant to pay one half of the Defendant's costs from 1 October 1997 to 20 January 1999.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 286
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Claimant (Mr Stacey); Defendant/respondent: Defendant (Mr Amber)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order After Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Offers to Settle, Payments Into Court, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Orders Offers to Settle Payments Into Court Exercise of 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Mr Stacey)

Claimant/appellant

Defendant (Mr Amber)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order After Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in ordering the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs from 1 October 1997 despite no payment into court being made at that time
  2. 2 Whether a written offer to settle can be treated as equivalent to a Part 36 payment for costs consequences under the Civil Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by treating the Defendant's written offer of 1 October 1997 as equivalent to a Part 36 payment into court for costs purposes. While the Claimant's conduct justified depriving him of his own costs for the period, it was wrong to order him to pay the Defendant's full costs for that period. The appropriate order was for the Claimant to pay one half of the Defendant's costs from 1 October 1997 to 20 January 1999.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Claimant to pay one half of Defendant's costs below for the period 1 October 1997 to 20 January 1999
  • Claimant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal