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 defendant's Part 36 offer, pressing on with weak amendment applications, failing to pay costs, and failing to provide evidence of inability to pay was highly unreasonable and outside the norm. This justified an order for indemnity costs for the defendant's post-expiry costs and the costs of the set-off application. The claimant was also ordered to pay the balance of the defendant's post-acceptance costs on the standard basis. An interim payment on account of costs was appropriate given the likely balance in the defendant's favour.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3152
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; indemnity costs awarded for post-expiry period and set-off application; standard costs for other post-acceptance costs; interim payment ordered.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Standard Costs, Set Off of Damages and Costs, Late Acceptance of Settlement, Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Standard Costs Set Off of Damages and Costs Late Acceptance of Settlement +1 more

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 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 due to the claimant's conduct
  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 on the standard basis

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conduct in refusing and then belatedly accepting the defendant's Part 36 offer, pressing on with weak amendment applications, failing to pay costs, and failing to provide evidence of inability to pay was highly unreasonable and outside the norm. This justified an order for indemnity costs for the defendant's post-expiry costs and the costs of the set-off application. The claimant was also ordered to pay the balance of the defendant's post-acceptance costs on the standard basis. An interim payment on account of costs was appropriate given the likely balance in the defendant's favour.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part for the defendant; indemnity costs awarded for post-expiry period and set-off application; standard costs for other post-acceptance costs; interim payment ordered.

Orders

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