Nulty & Anor v Milton Keynes Borough Council

Nulty & Anor v Milton Keynes Borough Council

Although the claimant’s Part 36 offer was withdrawn before trial, it remained a powerful factor in the exercise of the court’s discretion on costs. The claimant’s conduct was reasonable, while NIG’s conduct in relation to its insured and the litigation was found wanting. The court apportioned costs accordingly: claimant to have costs of the liability action up to 31 December 2010 on the standard basis; NIG to have 50% of the costs of the coverage action to 31 December 2010; claimant to have costs of both actions on an indemnity basis from 1 January 2011 to 18 July 2011, and thereafter on the standard basis. Interest on costs was set at 5% from 1 January 2011 and 1% over base up to 31...

Parties
Defendant: Michael Nulty; Defendant: National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited (NIG); Claimant: Milton Keynes Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs apportioned as per detailed orders; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity, Late Notification, Liability, Interest on Costs
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Late Notification Liability Interest on Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Nulty

Defendant

National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Limited (NIG)

Defendant

Milton Keynes Borough Council

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following judgment in liability and coverage actions
  2. 2 Effect of withdrawal of Part 36 offer on costs consequences
  3. 3 Assessment basis for costs (standard vs indemnity)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant’s Part 36 offer was withdrawn before trial, it remained a powerful factor in the exercise of the court’s discretion on costs. The claimant’s conduct was reasonable, while NIG’s conduct in relation to its insured and the litigation was found wanting. The court apportioned costs accordingly: claimant to have costs of the liability action up to 31 December 2010 on the standard basis; NIG to have 50% of the costs of the coverage action to 31 December 2010; claimant to have costs of both actions on an indemnity basis from 1 January 2011 to 18 July 2011, and thereafter on the standard basis. Interest on costs was set at 5% from 1 January 2011 and 1% over base up to 31...

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned as per detailed orders; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to have costs of liability action up to 31 December 2010 on standard basis, subject to assessment if not agreed.
  • NIG to have 50% of costs of coverage action to 31 December 2010 on standard basis, subject to assessment if not agreed.