P4 Ltd. v Unite Integrated Solutions Plc
Unite's rejection of mediation or a meeting was unreasonable, and its failure to provide relevant payment information pre-action deprived the parties of an early resolution. However, after the Part 36 payment, P4's conduct and the merits of the case justified Unite's entitlement to costs from that date. Costs are to be assessed on a standard basis, not indemnity.
- Parties
- Claimant: P4 Limited; Defendant: Unite Integrated Solutions PLC
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 November 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Post Trial, Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Costs apportioned: Unite to pay P4's costs up to 5 July 2005; P4 to pay Unite's costs from 5 July 2005, all on a standard basis.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Part 36 Offers, Conversion, Disclosure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P4 Limited
Claimant
Unite Integrated Solutions PLC
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant's refusal to mediate was unreasonable and should affect the costs order
- 2 Whether the defendant's failure to provide information pre-action should affect the costs order
- 3 Appropriate allocation of costs in light of Part 36 offers and payments
Ratio Decidendi
Unite's rejection of mediation or a meeting was unreasonable, and its failure to provide relevant payment information pre-action deprived the parties of an early resolution. However, after the Part 36 payment, P4's conduct and the merits of the case justified Unite's entitlement to costs from that date. Costs are to be assessed on a standard basis, not indemnity.
Court Disposition
Costs apportioned: Unite to pay P4's costs up to 5 July 2005; P4 to pay Unite's costs from 5 July 2005, all on a standard basis.
Orders
- Unite to pay P4’s costs of the action up to 5 July 2005.
- P4 to pay Unite’s costs of the action from 5 July 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment