Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones

Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones

Defendants are the successful party for costs purposes; Part 36 consequences apply from the last date for acceptance, with defendants entitled to costs thereafter. For the preceding period, a netted issue-based costs order is appropriate, resulting in no order as to costs. The 'drop hands' offer should have been accepted, so defendants are entitled to costs from the date of the offer. Defendants' expert evidence costs are disallowed as unreasonable, and each party bears its own costs for the adjournment. Costs of the pre-trial review are split according to the applications made.

Parties
Claimant: Fulham Leisure Holdings Limited; Defendant: Nicholson Graham & Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs determined; defendants entitled to costs from Part 36 acceptance date and from date of 'drop hands' offer; no order as to costs for prior period; expert evidence costs excluded; adjournment costs each side to bear own; PTR costs split.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Issue Based Costs Orders, Expert Evidence, Disclosure
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Part 36 Offers Issue Based Costs Orders Expert Evidence Disclosure

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fulham Leisure Holdings Limited

Claimant

Nicholson Graham & Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Determination of successful party for costs purposes
  2. 2 Application of CPR 36.20 regarding Part 36 payment
  3. 3 Appropriateness of issue-based costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants are the successful party for costs purposes; Part 36 consequences apply from the last date for acceptance, with defendants entitled to costs thereafter. For the preceding period, a netted issue-based costs order is appropriate, resulting in no order as to costs. The 'drop hands' offer should have been accepted, so defendants are entitled to costs from the date of the offer. Defendants' expert evidence costs are disallowed as unreasonable, and each party bears its own costs for the adjournment. Costs of the pre-trial review are split according to the applications made.

Court Disposition

Costs determined; defendants entitled to costs from Part 36 acceptance date and from date of 'drop hands' offer; no order as to costs for prior period; expert evidence costs excluded; adjournment costs each side to bear own; PTR costs split.

Orders

  • Defendants to have all their costs from the last date for acceptance of the Part 36 payment in.
  • Defendants to have their costs from the date when the 'drop hands' offer ought to have been accepted (14th January 2005).