Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) (19 July 2022)

Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) (19 July 2022)

The Claimant's Part 36 offer was a genuine attempt to settle; the normal consequences under CPR 36.17(4) apply, including indemnity costs from the expiry of the offer, enhanced interest at 5% above base, and an additional sum. Costs up to the expiry of the offer are also to be assessed on the indemnity basis due to the Defendants' unreasonable conduct. The court lacks jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal as the application was not made at the decision hearing. The Defendants are to pay the costs of the freezing injunction, which is to be discharged upon payment of sums due.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: OMYA UK LIMITED; First Defendant: Andrews Excavations Limited; Second Defendant: Daniel Andrews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction Court / Post Judgment Consequential Matters
Outcome
Application granted in favour of Claimant on all consequential matters; Defendants' application for permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Costs Assessment, Freezing Injunctions, Interest on Judgments, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Environmental Law Part 36 Offers Costs Assessment Freezing Injunctions Interest on Judgments Permission to Appeal

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

Parties

OMYA UK LIMITED

Claimant

Andrews Excavations Limited

First Defendant

Daniel Andrews

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction Court / Post Judgment Consequential Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's Part 36 offer was a genuine attempt to settle and whether the consequences under CPR 36.17(4) apply
  2. 2 Basis for assessment of costs (standard or indemnity)
  3. 3 Appropriate rate of interest on judgment sum under Part 36

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's Part 36 offer was a genuine attempt to settle; the normal consequences under CPR 36.17(4) apply, including indemnity costs from the expiry of the offer, enhanced interest at 5% above base, and an additional sum. Costs up to the expiry of the offer are also to be assessed on the indemnity basis due to the Defendants' unreasonable conduct. The court lacks jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal as the application was not made at the decision hearing. The Defendants are to pay the costs of the freezing injunction, which is to be discharged upon payment of sums due.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of Claimant on all consequential matters; Defendants' application for permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £63,254.72 under CPR 36.17(4)(d)(i) as additional sum.
  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs on the indemnity basis from expiry of the Part 36 offer and up to that date.