Littlestone & Ors v Macleish
The admissions payment was a payment on account of the claim and should not be aggregated with the Part 36 offer for the purpose of assessing whether the judgment was more advantageous. The claimant's judgment exceeded the value of the Part 36 offer, entitling him to costs. The contractual clause in the lease entitled the claimant to costs on the indemnity basis, not the standard basis.
- Parties
- Appellants: Littlestone and Others; Respondent: Macleish
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Part 36 Offers, Lease Obligations, Indemnity Costs, Repairing Covenants
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Littlestone and Others
Appellants
Macleish
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant obtained a judgment more advantageous than the defendants' Part 36 offer for costs purposes
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis due to contractual entitlement
Ratio Decidendi
The admissions payment was a payment on account of the claim and should not be aggregated with the Part 36 offer for the purpose of assessing whether the judgment was more advantageous. The claimant's judgment exceeded the value of the Part 36 offer, entitling him to costs. The contractual clause in the lease entitled the claimant to costs on the indemnity basis, not the standard basis.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Orders
- Defendants' appeal dismissed; claimant awarded costs of proceedings.
- Costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment