Huntley v Simmonds (Costs)

Huntley v Simmonds (Costs)

The Defendant's Part 36 offer, though technically defective, was sufficiently clear and caused no prejudice; the Court exercised discretion to apply the same costs consequences as if the offer had complied.

Parties
Claimant: Joseph Paul Huntley (also known as Joseph Paul Hopkins); Litigation Friend: Alison Jane McClure; Defendant: Paul Simmonds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Defendant's application for costs granted, with commencement date postponed by one day.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Periodical Payment Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Part 36 Offers Periodical Payment Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Paul Huntley (also known as Joseph Paul Hopkins)

Claimant

Alison Jane McClure

Litigation Friend

Paul Simmonds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Part 36 offer complied with CPR 36.5(4)
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to costs under CPR 36.14(2) despite technical defects in the offer

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Part 36 offer, though technically defective, was sufficiently clear and caused no prejudice; the Court exercised discretion to apply the same costs consequences as if the offer had complied.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for costs granted, with commencement date postponed by one day.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs from 7 November 2008.