Dutton & Ors v Minards & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 984 (16 July 2015)

Dutton & Ors v Minards & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 984 (16 July 2015)

The judge was entitled to find that, at the date of the Defendants' Part 36 offer and during the acceptance period, the Claimants could not realistically evaluate the offer due to uncertainty about the net value of the claim and lack of information about the counterclaim. The judge correctly applied the test of whether it would be unjust to apply the default costs order and exercised his discretion within the proper ambit. The appeal court will not interfere with such a value judgment unless it is plainly wrong or based on an error of principle.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 984
Parties
Claimants: Dutton & Ors; Defendants: Minards & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Costs Consequences of Late Acceptance, Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Costs Consequences of Late Acceptance Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dutton & Ors

Claimants

Minards & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in applying the default costs order under CPR Part 36.10(5) after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' offer of 30 July 2010 was a valid Part 36 offer
  3. 3 Whether it was unjust to apply the default costs order in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that, at the date of the Defendants' Part 36 offer and during the acceptance period, the Claimants could not realistically evaluate the offer due to uncertainty about the net value of the claim and lack of information about the counterclaim. The judge correctly applied the test of whether it would be unjust to apply the default costs order and exercised his discretion within the proper ambit. The appeal court will not interfere with such a value judgment unless it is plainly wrong or based on an error of principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order of the lower court affirmed
  • No variation to the costs order made by the judge below