Jordan v MGN Ltd [2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch) (24 July 2017)

Jordan v MGN Ltd [2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch) (24 July 2017)

The court held that there was no binding agreement on damages between the parties; the only agreement was on the amount offered in settlement negotiations, not as a resolution of the claim. The claimant's late acceptance of the September 2014 Part 36 offer, after incurring significant additional costs and failing to engage constructively in settlement, meant the normal costs consequences under CPR 36.10(5) should apply. The claimant was responsible for the unnecessary costs incurred after the expiry of the relevant period. The court found no basis to depart from the normal rule, and the defendant was entitled to its costs for the relevant period on the standard basis, not indemnity.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Edmund Patrick Jordan; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Application, Pre Trial; Determination of Costs Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer
Outcome
Application dismissed; normal costs consequences of late acceptance of Part 36 offer apply.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Costs Consequences, Abuse of Process, Settlement Negotiations, Phone Hacking, Conditional Fee Agreements
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Part 36 Offers Costs Consequences Abuse of Process Settlement Negotiations Phone Hacking +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund Patrick Jordan

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Application, Pre Trial; Determination of Costs Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the normal costs consequences under CPR 36.10(5) should be departed from
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to indemnity costs for the relevant period

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no binding agreement on damages between the parties; the only agreement was on the amount offered in settlement negotiations, not as a resolution of the claim. The claimant's late acceptance of the September 2014 Part 36 offer, after incurring significant additional costs and failing to engage constructively in settlement, meant the normal costs consequences under CPR 36.10(5) should apply. The claimant was responsible for the unnecessary costs incurred after the expiry of the relevant period. The court found no basis to depart from the normal rule, and the defendant was entitled to its costs for the relevant period on the standard basis, not indemnity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; normal costs consequences of late acceptance of Part 36 offer apply.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs from 15 September 2016 to date of acceptance of the September 2014 Part 36 offer, on the standard basis.
  • No order for indemnity costs.