Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership)

Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership)

The judge erred in treating the defendant's Part 36 offer as an effective compromise on business interruption losses and mischaracterised the claimants' conduct as unreasonable. The claimants' failure to succeed on all aspects of their claim was adequately reflected in the 30% reduction of their costs, and there was no basis to deprive them of costs after 13 June 2014 or to require them to pay the defendant's costs. The appeal was allowed and the costs order amended accordingly.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sugar Hut Group Limited and Ors; Defendant/respondent: A J Insurance Service (a partnership)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Business Interruption, Negligence, Quantum Assessment
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Part 36 Offers Business Interruption Negligence Quantum Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sugar Hut Group Limited and Ors

Claimant/appellant

A J Insurance Service (a partnership)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs to the defendant/respondent after 13 June 2014
  2. 2 Whether the claimants/appellants were penalised twice for the same shortcoming
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' conduct in pursuing business interruption losses in excess of £600,000 was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in treating the defendant's Part 36 offer as an effective compromise on business interruption losses and mischaracterised the claimants' conduct as unreasonable. The claimants' failure to succeed on all aspects of their claim was adequately reflected in the 30% reduction of their costs, and there was no basis to deprive them of costs after 13 June 2014 or to require them to pay the defendant's costs. The appeal was allowed and the costs order amended accordingly.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Judge’s Order of 19 November 2014 set aside
  • Paragraph 1 of the Judge’s Order amended to read: 'the Defendant shall pay 70% of the Claimants’ costs of the assessment of damages on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed'