Jopling v Leavesley & Anor

Jopling v Leavesley & Anor

The judge erred by failing to give effect to the express terms of the Part 36 offer, making unjustified assumptions about trial outcomes, and undermining the policy behind Part 36. The default rule that the defendants should pay the whole of the claimant's costs applies.

Parties
Appellant: Jopling; Respondent: Leavesley; Respondent: Thompson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Late Acceptance, Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Late Acceptance Discretion in Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jopling

Appellant

Leavesley

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion on costs following late acceptance of a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the express terms of the Part 36 offer should have governed costs
  3. 3 Whether assumptions about trial outcomes were justified in apportioning costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to give effect to the express terms of the Part 36 offer, making unjustified assumptions about trial outcomes, and undermining the policy behind Part 36. The default rule that the defendants should pay the whole of the claimant's costs applies.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the whole of the claimant's costs down to the date of acceptance.