Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors

Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors

The claimants failed to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the defendants’ Part 36 offers. The general rule under CPR 36.14 applies, requiring the claimants to pay the defendants’ costs from the expiry of the first offer, unless unjust. It would be unjust for the claimants to pay the entirety of the costs of Part 1 due to the defendants’ disproportionate conduct, so the defendants are awarded only 25% of their costs for Part 1. For Part 2, the claimants failed on the main issues and did not overcome the formidable obstacle to displace the general rule; thus, the defendants are entitled to all their costs for Part 2. Indemnity costs are awarded only for the co-insurance issues as...

Parties
Claimant: Ted Baker PLC; Claimant: No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd; Defendant: AXA Insurance UK PLC; Defendant: Fusion Insurances Services Ltd; Defendant: Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment on Costs After Trial and Multiple Judgments
Outcome
Defendants awarded costs subject to reductions and interim payment ordered
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Standard Basis Costs, Interest on Costs, Settlement Offers
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Standard Basis Costs Interest on Costs Settlement Offers

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Baker PLC

Claimant

No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd

Claimant

AXA Insurance UK PLC

Defendant

Fusion Insurances Services Ltd

Defendant

Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment on Costs After Trial and Multiple Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings after failing to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the defendants' Part 36 offers
  2. 2 Whether any reduction or adjustment to the general rule on costs is justified due to the conduct of the parties or the outcome of specific issues
  3. 3 Whether any costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the defendants’ Part 36 offers. The general rule under CPR 36.14 applies, requiring the claimants to pay the defendants’ costs from the expiry of the first offer, unless unjust. It would be unjust for the claimants to pay the entirety of the costs of Part 1 due to the defendants’ disproportionate conduct, so the defendants are awarded only 25% of their costs for Part 1. For Part 2, the claimants failed on the main issues and did not overcome the formidable obstacle to displace the general rule; thus, the defendants are entitled to all their costs for Part 2. Indemnity costs are awarded only for the co-insurance issues as...

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded costs subject to reductions and interim payment ordered

Orders

  • Defendants awarded 25% of their costs of Part 1 (including the hearing leading to the second judgment) assessed on a standard basis with interest from 29 July 2010
  • Defendants awarded all their costs of Part 2 assessed on a standard basis with interest