Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd

Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd

The recorder erred in his approach to the comparison between the Part 36 offer and the judgment. After the CRU review, the net value of the judgment to the claimant exceeded the value of the defendant’s offer. The correct approach was to compare the net sums after deduction of recoverable benefits, and on that basis, the claimant had beaten the Part 36 offer. The costs order in favour of the defendant was therefore wrong and should be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Colin Crooks; Respondent: Hendricks Lovell Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Consequences, CPR Part 36 Offers, Recoverable Benefits, Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Consequences CPR Part 36 Offers Recoverable Benefits Statutory Interpretation

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Crooks

Appellant

Hendricks Lovell Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recorder misconstrued the meaning of the defendant’s Part 36 offer, specifically the phrase 'net of CRU'.
  2. 2 Whether the recorder was required to consider the effect of the offer at the date of judgment or after the CRU review.
  3. 3 Whether the recorder was wrong to award costs in favour of the defendant, finding the claimant had failed to beat the Part 36 offer.

Ratio Decidendi

The recorder erred in his approach to the comparison between the Part 36 offer and the judgment. After the CRU review, the net value of the judgment to the claimant exceeded the value of the defendant’s offer. The correct approach was to compare the net sums after deduction of recoverable benefits, and on that basis, the claimant had beaten the Part 36 offer. The costs order in favour of the defendant was therefore wrong and should be set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recorder’s costs order set aside
  • Costs awarded to the claimant (Mr Crooks), subject to detailed assessment if not agreed