Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 3152 (QB) (07 December 2017)

Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 3152 (QB) (07 December 2017)

The claimant's conduct in refusing and then belatedly accepting the Part 36 offer, and in her approach to the set-off and post-acceptance costs, was highly unreasonable and outside the norm. This justified assessment of the defendant's post-expiry costs and set-off application costs on the indemnity basis. The claimant is also liable for the balance of the defendant's post-acceptance costs. An interim payment on account of costs is appropriate given the likely balance in the defendant's favour.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3152 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Svetlana Lokhova; Defendant: David Longmuir
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel and Slander) / Post Acceptance of Part 36 Offer; Costs Determination
Outcome
Application granted in substantial part for the defendant; costs orders made as sought by the defendant, subject to further argument on quantum and allocation.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Set Off, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Set Off Amendment of Pleadings

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

Parties

Svetlana Lokhova

Claimant

David Longmuir

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Post Acceptance of Part 36 Offer; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's post-expiry costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should pay the defendant's costs of the set-off application on the indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should pay the balance of the defendant's post-acceptance costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conduct in refusing and then belatedly accepting the Part 36 offer, and in her approach to the set-off and post-acceptance costs, was highly unreasonable and outside the norm. This justified assessment of the defendant's post-expiry costs and set-off application costs on the indemnity basis. The claimant is also liable for the balance of the defendant's post-acceptance costs. An interim payment on account of costs is appropriate given the likely balance in the defendant's favour.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part for the defendant; costs orders made as sought by the defendant, subject to further argument on quantum and allocation.

Orders

  • Defendant's post-expiry Part 36 costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis (except where already ordered on standard basis)
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of the set-off application on the indemnity basis