Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership) [2016] EWCA Civ 46 (03 February 2016)

Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership) [2016] EWCA Civ 46 (03 February 2016)

The trial judge erred in treating the defendant's Part 36 offer as an effective, free-standing offer for business interruption losses and mischaracterised the claimants' conduct as unreasonable. The claimants' failure on discrete issues was already reflected in the 30% costs reduction, and there was no basis to deprive them of costs after 13 June 2014 or require them to pay the defendant's costs. The appeal was allowed and the costs order amended to award claimants 70% of their costs of the assessment of damages, with no temporal limitation.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 46
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Sugar Hut Group Limited and Ors; Defendant/respondent: A J Insurance Service (a partnership)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Quantum Assessment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Business Interruption Losses, Disclosure Obligations, Quantum Assessment
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Professional Negligence Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Business Interruption Losses Disclosure Obligations Quantum Assessment

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sugar Hut Group Limited and Ors

Claimants/appellants

A J Insurance Service (a partnership)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Quantum Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in costs orders relating to quantum assessment after Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether claimants' conduct post-offer justified depriving them of costs and awarding costs to defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in treating the defendant's Part 36 offer as an effective, free-standing offer for business interruption losses and mischaracterised the claimants' conduct as unreasonable. The claimants' failure on discrete issues was already reflected in the 30% costs reduction, and there was no basis to deprive them of costs after 13 June 2014 or require them to pay the defendant's costs. The appeal was allowed and the costs order amended to award claimants 70% of their costs of the assessment of damages, with no temporal limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Judge's Order of 19 November 2014 set aside
  • Paragraph 1 of the Judge's Order amended to award claimants 70% of their costs of the assessment of damages on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed