Howell & Ors v Lees- Millais & Ors

Howell & Ors v Lees- Millais & Ors

The April 2009 letter was not a valid Part 36 offer because it did not comply with the requirements of CPR 36.10(1), as it only offered a proportion of costs or a fixed sum, not all costs. The offer accepted in March 2010 was more attractive to the respondents due to the additional sum offered to Fiona. Therefore,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Jonathan Howell; Appellant: Alison Ruth Robinson; Appellant: John Neal Thompson; Respondent: Marcus Lees-Millais; Respondent: Lorna Milne Joicey; Respondent: Fiona Astrid Lees-Millais; Respondent: Hector Forwood; Respondent: Lucinda Loraine Newall; Respondent: Alexander Newall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Trustee Applications, Settlement Negotiations
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Costs Part 36 Offers Trustee Applications Settlement Negotiations

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Paul Jonathan Howell

Appellant

Alison Ruth Robinson

Appellant

John Neal Thompson

Appellant

Marcus Lees-Millais

Respondent

Lorna Milne Joicey

Respondent

Fiona Astrid Lees-Millais

Respondent

Hector Forwood

Respondent

Lucinda Loraine Newall

Respondent

Alexander Newall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the April 2009 letter constituted a valid Part 36 offer under the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. 2 Whether the trustees were entitled to costs for the period from May 2009 to April 2010
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs following settlement offers

Ratio Decidendi

The April 2009 letter was not a valid Part 36 offer because it did not comply with the requirements of CPR 36.10(1), as it only offered a proportion of costs or a fixed sum, not all costs. The offer accepted in March 2010 was more attractive to the respondents due to the additional sum offered to Fiona. Therefore, the allocation of costs for the period from May 2009 to April 2010 was a matter for the judge's discretion, and there was no presumption in favour of the trustees. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the period from May 2009 to April 2010 between the trustees and the respondents, other than what was agreed in the settlement letters.
  • Any further publication of underlying judgments or evidence requires court permission.