Sternberg Reed Solicitors v Andrew Paul Harrison [2019] EWHC 2065 (Ch) (02 July 2019)

Sternberg Reed Solicitors v Andrew Paul Harrison [2019] EWHC 2065 (Ch) (02 July 2019)

The arbitrator erred in law in stating he had a general discretion to admit 'without prejudice' communications, but was entitled to consider the 12 November 2015 offer as it was not expressly 'without prejudice'. The arbitrator's decision that neither party had gained much advantage and that each should bear their own costs was within his discretion and not based on extraneous or impermissible grounds. There was no error of law justifying interference with the costs award.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2065 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sternberg Reed Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Paul Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 (point of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Costs Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Costs in Arbitration, Admissibility of Settlement Offers, Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996, Discretion in Costs Awards
Arbitration Civil Procedure Without Prejudice Rule Costs in Arbitration Admissibility of Settlement Offers Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 Discretion in Costs Awards

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

Parties

Sternberg Reed Solicitors

Claimant/appellant

Andrew Paul Harrison

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 (point of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Costs Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator erred in law by admitting 'without prejudice' correspondence on costs
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator correctly construed the status of settlement offers
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator misdirected himself in holding there was no outright winner

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator erred in law in stating he had a general discretion to admit 'without prejudice' communications, but was entitled to consider the 12 November 2015 offer as it was not expressly 'without prejudice'. The arbitrator's decision that neither party had gained much advantage and that each should bear their own costs was within his discretion and not based on extraneous or impermissible grounds. There was no error of law justifying interference with the costs award.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant awarded costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £9,417.40, payable within 14 days
  • Permission to appeal refused