Carillion JM Ltd v Phi Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1581 (TCC) (23 June 2011)

Carillion JM Ltd v Phi Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1581 (TCC) (23 June 2011)

Phi's February 2010 letter did not comply with Part 36 as it failed to specify a 21-day acceptance period, so it did not have Part 36 consequences. However, it was a contractual offer, withdrawn by subsequent inconsistent offers in November 2010. The court exercised its discretion to order Phi to pay 20% of Carillion's costs (which RWC was ordered to pay) and 30% of RWC's costs of its contribution proceedings against Phi, with no order as to costs for Phi's contribution proceedings against RWC.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1581 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Carillion JM Limited; Defendant (ht 09 152), Third Party (ht 10 111): Phi Group Limited; Third Party (ht 09 152), Defendant (ht 10 111): Robert West Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Trial Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned as follows: Phi to pay 20% of Carillion's costs (which RWC is to pay), Phi to pay 30% of RWC's costs of its contribution proceedings against Phi, and no order as to costs for Phi's contribution proceedings against RWC. Permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Contribution Proceedings, Apportionment of Liability
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Contribution Proceedings Apportionment of Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carillion JM Limited

Claimant

Phi Group Limited

Defendant (ht 09 152), Third Party (ht 10 111)

Robert West Consulting Limited

Third Party (ht 09 152), Defendant (ht 10 111)

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Trial Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Phi's February 2010 letter constituted a valid Part 36 offer and its effect on costs.
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned between Phi and RWC in light of offers and conduct.
  3. 3 Whether Phi should bear a proportion of Carillion's costs paid by RWC.

Ratio Decidendi

Phi's February 2010 letter did not comply with Part 36 as it failed to specify a 21-day acceptance period, so it did not have Part 36 consequences. However, it was a contractual offer, withdrawn by subsequent inconsistent offers in November 2010. The court exercised its discretion to order Phi to pay 20% of Carillion's costs (which RWC was ordered to pay) and 30% of RWC's costs of its contribution proceedings against Phi, with no order as to costs for Phi's contribution proceedings against RWC.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned as follows: Phi to pay 20% of Carillion's costs (which RWC is to pay), Phi to pay 30% of RWC's costs of its contribution proceedings against Phi, and no order as to costs for Phi's contribution proceedings against RWC. Permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Phi to pay 20% of Carillion's costs (which RWC is to pay).
  • Phi to pay 30% of RWC's costs of its contribution proceedings against Phi.