Carver v BAA Plc

Carver v BAA Plc

The phrase 'more advantageous' in CPR 36.14 is not limited to a strict monetary comparison; the court is entitled to consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the proportionality of pursuing litigation for a marginal gain. The judge was correct to find that the claimant had not obtained a judgment more advantageous than the Part 36 offer and to award costs to the defendant after the expiry of the relevant period.

Parties
Appellant: Lisa Carver; Respondent: BAA PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Judgment More Advantageous, Settlement, Conduct of Parties
Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Judgment More Advantageous Settlement Conduct of Parties

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Carver

Appellant

BAA PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant who beats a payment into court by a modest amount has obtained a judgment more advantageous than the defendant’s Part 36 offer under CPR 36.14
  2. 2 Whether the court is entitled to consider all the circumstances of the case in determining costs consequences under CPR 36.14

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'more advantageous' in CPR 36.14 is not limited to a strict monetary comparison; the court is entitled to consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the proportionality of pursuing litigation for a marginal gain. The judge was correct to find that the claimant had not obtained a judgment more advantageous than the Part 36 offer and to award costs to the defendant after the expiry of the relevant period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant’s costs from the expiry of the Part 36 offer
  • No order as to costs between November 2005 and June 2006