Codent Ltd v Lyson Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1835 (08 December 2005)

Codent Ltd v Lyson Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1835 (08 December 2005)

The trial judge erred in principle by treating the effect of the Calderbank offers as an all-or-nothing issue and failing to consider an intermediate, just position. The defendant's offer was clear, genuine, and for a sum exceeding the claimant's recovery, but was not open for 21 days. The appropriate costs order was to award the claimant 70% of its costs up to and including the first day of trial, and the defendant its costs thereafter.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1835
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Codent Limited; Defendant/appellant: Lyson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Order) / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order varied
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Calderbank Offers, Part 36 Offers, Settlement Offers, Discretion in Costs, Appeals Procedure
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Orders Calderbank Offers Part 36 Offers Settlement Offers Discretion in Costs Appeals Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Codent Limited

Claimant/respondent

Lyson Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Order) / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give effect to Calderbank offers when exercising discretion as to costs
  2. 2 Whether the costs order should have reflected the defendant's settlement offers

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in principle by treating the effect of the Calderbank offers as an all-or-nothing issue and failing to consider an intermediate, just position. The defendant's offer was clear, genuine, and for a sum exceeding the claimant's recovery, but was not open for 21 days. The appropriate costs order was to award the claimant 70% of its costs up to and including the first day of trial, and the defendant its costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order varied

Orders

  • Claimant to have 70% of costs up to and including 29th October 2002 (first day of trial)
  • Defendant to have costs thereafter, including Christmas/New Year 2003/2004 period