Samuel Arthur Jones v Neal Tracey & Ors

Samuel Arthur Jones v Neal Tracey & Ors

The claimant's conduct did not warrant a deduction from his costs as he made reasonable settlement efforts, the third defendant's conduct was unsatisfactory, and the merits were strongly in the claimant's favour. The Part 36 offer was valid and its consequences should apply, as it was a genuine attempt to settle and the third defendant had sufficient information to accept it. The letter of 7 June 2023 was not without prejudice and could be relied upon.

Parties
Claimant: Samuel Arthur Jones; Defendant: Neal Tracey; Defendant: Stephen Robert Birt; Defendant: Linda Maria Cano; Defendant: The British Polio Fellowship; Defendant: Christopher Strotten; Defendant: Crystal Lockett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim / Costs Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Costs awarded to claimant with Part 36 consequences
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Without Prejudice Communications
Probate Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Alternative Dispute Resolution Without Prejudice Communications

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

Parties

Samuel Arthur Jones

Claimant

Neal Tracey

Defendant

Stephen Robert Birt

Defendant

Linda Maria Cano

Defendant

The British Polio Fellowship

Defendant

Christopher Strotten

Defendant

Crystal Lockett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim / Costs Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's conduct warranted a reduction in costs for failure to engage in ADR
  2. 2 Whether the Part 36 offer consequences should apply in a probate claim
  3. 3 Whether the letter dated 7 June 2023 was without prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conduct did not warrant a deduction from his costs as he made reasonable settlement efforts, the third defendant's conduct was unsatisfactory, and the merits were strongly in the claimant's favour. The Part 36 offer was valid and its consequences should apply, as it was a genuine attempt to settle and the third defendant had sufficient information to accept it. The letter of 7 June 2023 was not without prejudice and could be relied upon.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to claimant with Part 36 consequences

Orders

  • Third defendant to pay claimant's costs on the standard basis until expiry of the Relevant Period and on the indemnity basis thereafter to the date of the order.
  • Interest on costs at 4% above base rate from the date incurred to payment.