Martin v Randall [2007] EWCA Civ 1155 (22 October 2007)

Martin v Randall [2007] EWCA Civ 1155 (22 October 2007)

The trial judge's allocation of costs, awarding the claimant costs from the date of the Part 36 offer until the day before trial and the defendant costs for the trial itself, was within the ambit of reasonable discretion, given the history of offers and conduct. The only error was in the computation of the period for which costs were awarded, which should have started 21 days after receipt of the Part 36 offer, not the date of the offer.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 1155
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Martin; Appellant/respondent: Randall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; only to correct the period for which costs were awarded.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Partnership Dissolution
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Exercise of Judicial Discretion Partnership Dissolution

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin

Respondent/appellant

Randall

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding pre-trial costs to the claimant despite failed fraud allegations
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in not making an order for costs prior to the Part 36 offer
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in the computation of the period for which costs were awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's allocation of costs, awarding the claimant costs from the date of the Part 36 offer until the day before trial and the defendant costs for the trial itself, was within the ambit of reasonable discretion, given the history of offers and conduct. The only error was in the computation of the period for which costs were awarded, which should have started 21 days after receipt of the Part 36 offer, not the date of the offer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; only to correct the period for which costs were awarded.

Orders

  • Paragraph three of the costs order amended to reduce the period to start 21 days after receipt of the Part 36 offer (i.e., from 13 June 2005)
  • Otherwise, appeal dismissed