Capital Bank Plc v Stickland [2004] EWCA Civ 1677 (10 December 2004)

Capital Bank Plc v Stickland [2004] EWCA Civ 1677 (10 December 2004)

The judge did not misdirect himself in law or exercise his discretion on a flawed basis in refusing late acceptance of the Part 36 offer, given the change of circumstances (new evidence undermining the defence), lateness of the application, and defendant's conduct. The costs order, including indemnity costs and interest, was within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1677
Parties
Claimant/respondent: CAPITAL BANK Plc; Defendant/appellant: PETER STICKLAND
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Mercantile Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Late Acceptance of Settlement Offers, Costs Orders, Mortgagee Rights, Court Discretion in Settlement Acceptance
Civil Procedure Banking Law Part 36 Offers Late Acceptance of Settlement Offers Costs Orders Mortgagee Rights Court Discretion in Settlement Acceptance

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAPITAL BANK Plc

Claimant/respondent

PETER STICKLAND

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Mercantile Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing the defendant permission to accept the claimant's Part 36 offer after the 21-day period
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to award indemnity costs and interest on costs when late acceptance was refused

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not misdirect himself in law or exercise his discretion on a flawed basis in refusing late acceptance of the Part 36 offer, given the change of circumstances (new evidence undermining the defence), lateness of the application, and defendant's conduct. The costs order, including indemnity costs and interest, was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis up to and including 1 October 2004, and on an indemnity basis thereafter