Kerry Underwood

CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER OVERRIDES FIXED COSTS

with 37 comments


I deal with this in my new book – to buy it click here or visit Amazon.

 

In Broadhurst v Tan and Taylor v Smith [2016] EWCA Civ 94 (23 February 2016)

the Court of Appeal held that a claimant who matches or beats its own Part 36 offer in a fixed costs case gets indemnity costs, as well as the other enhancements such as a 10% increase in damages and additional interest etc. in addition to fixed costs.

The same priniciple appears to apply to provisional assessment and thus a receiving party who matches or beats its own offer will get indemnity costs. It remains to be seen if the court will follow the Broadhurst line and award the capped maximum costs of £1,500.00 in addition to indemnity costs.
As far as fixed costs are concerned this resolves the issue between the two different lines of authority, both entirely justifiable on the wording of the different rules, one saying that fixed costs were just that and that an indemnity costs order made no difference, and one holding that Part 36 and its provision for indemnity costs trumped CPR 45.29B, which deals with fixed costs.

One of those lines of authority was the Smith v Taylor line where the court found that Part 36 took priority and not CPR 45.29B and here the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against that decision.
The other line of cases was generally known as Dixon v Bennett but in fact the appeal here was in a case called Broadhurst v Tan where the lower court had come to the same conclusion as in Dixon v Bennett, that is that nothing above fixed costs could be awarded following a successful claimant Part 36 offer. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in that case.

The Master of the Rolls made it clear that although these cases concerned the version of Part 36 which applied before 6 April 2015 “the provisions applicable to this appeal remains substantially the same” and therefore this is the law in relation to post 6 April 2015 Part 36 offers.

It was accepted that there was a tension between CPR 45.29B and CPR 36.14A. The former states that the only costs to be awarded in a Section III A cases are fixed costs, whereas the latter says that, in such cases, rule 36.14 will apply subject only to the modifications stated in rule 36.14A, and following, and none of those modifications affects rule 36.14(3).

The Explanatory Memorandum to the 2013 Amendment Rules which was laid before Parliament to accompany the draft statutory instrument is admissible as an aid to the construction of the rules. See R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Spath Homes Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349.

At paragraph 7.1(e) that Explanatory Memorandum states:-

“New rules 36.10A and 36.14A make provision in respect of the fixed costs a claimant may recover where the claimant either accepts or fails to beat a defendant’s offer to settle made under part 36 of the CPR. Provision is also made with regard to defendants’ costs in those circumstances. If a defendant refuses a claimant’s offer to settle and the court subsequently awards the claimant damages which are greater than or equal to the sum they were prepared to accept in the settlement, the claimant will not be limited to receiving his fixed costs, but will be entitled to costs assessed on the indemnity basis in accordance with rule 36.14.”

The counterview, rejected by the Court of Appeal, was that although rule 36.14(3) applies in a fixed costs case there is no difference between profit costs assessed on the indemnity basis and the fixed costs provided in Table 6B of rule 45.29C.

It was common ground that under CPR 45.29J the court had a general discretion to allow additional costs in exceptional circumstances – the so-called escape clause.

It was also common ground that the matching or beating of a claimant’s Part 36 offer would not of itself bring the matter within the escape clause.

As to the practical application of this rule the Court of Appeal, at paragraph 31, said:-

“Where a claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer in a section IIIA case, he will be awarded fixed costs to the last staging point provided by rule 45.29C and Table 6B. He will then be awarded costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis in addition from the date that the offer became effective. This does not require any apportionment. It will, however, lead to a generous outcome for the claimant. I do not regard this outcome as so surprising or so unfair to the defendant that it requires the court to equate fixed costs with costs assessed on the indemnity basis… a generous outcome in such circumstances is consistent with rule 36.14(3) as a whole and its policy of providing claimants with generous incentives to make offers, and defendants with countervailing incentives to accept them.”

Thus one looks at the date of settlement or judgment and the claimant gets fixed costs to that stage in the usual way, whether or not a Part 36 offer has been made. That is straightforward.

In addition the claimant gets costs on the indemnity basis from the date that the offer became effective. I take that phrase to mean from 21 days after the offer was made.

Let us say that the claimant makes a Part 36 offer when the matter is out of the portal but before proceedings are issued. The claimant subsequently matches or beats that offer at trial.
The claimant will get full fixed costs, including the advocacy fee and in addition will get full indemnity costs from 21 days after the successful Part 36 offer was made. For all intents and purposes the claimant, or rather the claimant’s solicitor, will be paid twice – once at the level of fixed costs and once at the full indemnity rate.

As I understand the judgment no credit for the fixed costs has to be given against the indemnity costs.

As the court said “this does not require any apportionment.” Also there would be no need for the reference to this being a generous outcome for the claimant; if the claimant just received indemnity costs and not fixed costs as well, then it would be just the same as any non-fixed costs case and so there would be no additional element of generosity.

This is a view shared by Professor Dominic Regan and I am grateful to Dominic for considering this piece.

An alternative interpretation is that the claimant gets fixed costs to the point where the Part 36 offer was made and indemnity costs thereafter, but again that would not involve nay element of that being a generous outcome for the claimant. It would also make less difference than normal as in fixed costs cases part of the recoverable fee is essentially a recoverable contingency fee related to the amount of damages, whatever stage the case has reached. I suppose that that could be interpreted as the element of generosity.

Provisional Assessment

My view expressed here has now been confirmed by the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in Lowin v W Portsmouth and Co Ltd [2016] EWHC 2301 (QB)  and I analyze this case in detail in my post Claimants’ Part 36 Offers: Six New Decisions.

I referred above to the situation in relation to provisional assessment. CPR 47.15(5) provides:-

“(5) In proceedings which do not go beyond provisional assessment, the maximum amount the court will award to any party as costs of the assessment (other than the costs of drafting the bill of costs) is £1,500 together with any VAT thereon and any court fees paid by that party.”

Provisional assessment is a form of Detailed Assessment.

CPR 47.20(4) imports the provisions of Part 36 into the costs of Detailed Assessment with the appropriate change in terminology, for example CPR 47.20(4)(a) provides that “claimant” refers to “receiving party” and “defendant” refers to “paying party”.

The logic and public policy reasons for the decision of the Court of Appeal in Broadhurst in relation to fixed costs must apply with equal force to provisional assessment proceedings. Others have suggested that whether assessment is on the standard basis or the indemnity basis the £1,500 cap is just that – an absolute cap- and that capped costs are conceptually different from fixed costs.

However the Broadhurst points still apply and if it was clear that the standard costs in a provisional assessment case are going to hit the cap then a claimant’s Part 36 offer becomes much less important as does the defendant’s incentive to settle. Why import Part 36 at all if that is the case? Indemnity costs capped at £1,500 are hardly worth the effort and concession.

A counter argument is that the 10% uplift on costs for the effort of making one Part 36 offer taking a few minutes makes it very much worthwhile and that here, as compared with the substantive case, that is where the reward lies rather than in extra costs for a long period of a piece of contested litigation.

The judgment is also of great importance for two other reasons.

Indemnity Costs for Claimant on Settlement

Firstly it is a recognition that a claimant gets indemnity costs even if the matter does not go to trial. Otherwise there would be no need to refer to “the last staging point” as it would only apply if the matter had gone to trial and no consideration of the different stages within the preparation for trial matrix would be necessary.

This had not previously been clear.

Underwoods Method

At paragraph 32 of the judgment the Master of the Rolls recognises, with neither approval nor criticism, the existence of the Underwoods Method, that is of a solicitor and own client hourly rate with the overall charge to the client capped at a percentage of damages. This is a crucial section and is a wholesale rejection of the obiter comments made by District Judge Lumb in A & M (by their litigation friend) v Royal Mail Group (2) [2015] MISC B30 (CC).

The relevant part of the Court of Appeal Judgment appears at paragraph 32 and reads:-

“He says that the way in which lawyers are typically engaged in this part of the market is heavily reliant on CFAs and legal expenses insurance. Both forms of funding typically provide for lawyers to charge on a conventional hourly basis, but may cap their right to enforce payment with reference to the amount recovered. He adds that it is still very common for costs beyond fixed costs to be deducted from claimants’ damages. There is no evidence before us to support this statement either, although I have no reason to doubt it.”

Clearly lawyers who stand to get costs on the indemnity basis will wish to have an appropriate hourly rate in the client care retainer, but equally clearly the client will want to be assured that they will not lose all or most of their damages by way of the unrecovered solicitor and own client costs, given the relatively low level of fixed costs.

The comments of the Master of the Rolls are eminently sensible and helpful and should go a long way to removing the fears of civil litigators concerning fixed costs.

This decision of the Court of Appeal is of great importance and will of course become very much more significant now that it is proposed to introduce fixed costs in all civil work of all kinds where the damages are valued at £250,000.00 or less. The potential rewards to claimants solicitors for getting the Part 36 offer right in such cases is enormous as not only will the solicitor receive fixed costs but they will also get indemnity costs on top. Being indemnity costs they are not subject to proportionality.

However the indemnity costs, not being fixed costs, are subject to the indemnity rule and thus very careful drafting of the retainer is necessary.

A retainer that provides for the solicitor to charge the client fixed costs as per the matrix will result in the solicitor getting no extra costs at all as the costs on the indemnity basis, that is the basis of the solicitor and client retainer, will be identical in amount to fixed costs as that is the wording of the retainer.

This is one of a series of recent decisions by the superior courts clarifying the law in relation to Part 36 offers. They have all gone in favour of claimants and this is a welcome redress to what appeared to be an anti- claimant bias in some earlier, lower court, decisions.

Many thanks to Professor Dominic Regan for his help with this piece.

I am grateful to Kevyn Thompson for discussions re CPR 47.

Please see my related blogs:-

PART 36: THE DRY SALVAGES : UNIFIED

PART 36 – IMPORTANT RECENT CASES

Advertisements

Written by kerryunderwood

March 1, 2016 at 8:55 am

Posted in Uncategorized

37 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hi Kerry,

    I understood the way to calculate the costs was in your ‘alternative’ approach.

    My understanding is based around the apportionment comment, which I understood to mean that the staging point in which the Part 36 offer expired did not need any apportionment, and the Claimant would receive both the entire fixed costs for the phase, as well as the indemnity costs for the work undertaken within that phase from the expiry of the offer as well.

    This would then lead to a generous outcome, as the Claimant would recover both types of costs for a section of work within that phase.

    I can see merit in the points you have raised, and I will re-read the Judgment alongside Part 45 at some point this week.

    It is frustrating though, how we have received an apparently definitive answer on this, yet we are still having to decipher the response we have received.

    Many thanks as ever for an entire and explanatory outline to the position.

    Callum Johnson

    March 1, 2016 at 11:52 am

    • Hi Callum

      You may be right. I did not want to criticise the decision, but you are spot on – it is not clear. Dominic Regan shares my view. I have written to Benjamin Williams QC, who represented the successful parties, to see if he can throw any light on this particular issue.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 1, 2016 at 11:56 am

      • Callum

        Please see exchange with Brian below. Liverpool County Court treated disposal as hearing sufficient to allow order of indemnity costs, which must be right. Also applied my interpretation and awarded full fixed costs for the whole case including for the post Part 36 work AND indemnity costs for post Part 36 period.

        Kerry

        kerryunderwood

        March 2, 2016 at 11:49 am

  2. Hi Kerry,

    The decision in Broadhurst concerned the costs consequences where a Claimant obtains judgment against the Defendant with reference to the old Part 36.14 (pre 06 April 2015) or what is now Part 36.17.

    In my view, the decision in Broadhurst therefore ONLY has effect where the Claimant beats their offer at Trial and does not apply where a Defendant accepts a Part 36 offer out of time, or in fact, any other circumstance.

    As such, I am also conflicted in regards to your stance on Provisional Assessment costs. In my view, these are fixed at £1,500 and indemnity costs will not apply where a Claimant beats their offer at Provisional Assessment.

    As Callum rightly points out, the decision in Broadhurst has annoyingly created a difference in opinion, but this will always be the case until the Rules Committee make the appropriate amendments to the CPR. In the meantime, it is credit to you Kerry for creating a blog where practitioners from both sides can openly discuss issues such as these. I welcome your thoughts on any of the above.

    Many thanks.

    Josh

    Josh Coleman

    March 1, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    • Josh

      Many thanks. See today’s comments and my replies generally. As to provisional assessment I think everyone agrees that indemnity costs apply if Claimant matches or beats offer. Issue is whether the £1,500 cap acts as a maximum re indemnity costs as well as standard costs.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm

      • Sorry Kerry, what I said in regards to PA costs wasn’t entirely clear. Indemnity costs apply where a Claimant matches or beats their Part 36 costs offer at Provisional assessment. However I believe the £1,500 cap is just that – a cap.

        Josh Coleman

        March 2, 2016 at 4:09 pm

      • Could go either way IMO. Many thanks for your comments

        Kerry

        kerryunderwood

        March 2, 2016 at 5:50 pm

  3. Indemnity Costs for Claimant on Settlement

    Thank you for your email Kerry . So very helpful . Can you help me with this bit please

    Firstly it is a recognition that a claimant gets indemnity costs even if the matter does not go to trial. Otherwise there would be no need to refer to “the last staging point” as it would only apply if the matter had gone to trial and no consideration of the different stages within the preparation for trial matrix would be necessary.

    Is that right ? I don’t understand how indemnity costs and fixed fees are both recoverable without concluding at Trial ? Thanks so much

    Gavyn

    March 1, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    • Agree that that is not certain from the Broadhurst J but it must be logical. Otherwise no incentive on a defendant to obey rules. See today’s Liverpool decision where court regarded disposal hearing as an occasion to award indemnity sits in a fixed costs case.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    • Will be posting a blog on this soon with much more detailed argument.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 10, 2016 at 2:22 pm

      • Hi Kerry,

        There are now many people saying that the Claimant must be entitled to recovering costs on the indemnity basis where a Defendant accepts the Claimant’s Part 36 offer out of time – with arguments such as “acceptance of a Part 36 offer is akin to Judgement” and so Broadhurst supports their position. This is incorrect.

        They, like you, say that this must be logical as otherwise there is no penalty for the Defendant accepting an offer out of time.

        My argument to that statement is this:

        The Defendant is penalised by the fact that if they accept an offer out of time, they are likely to pay a higher stage/column of fixed costs, that is unless the offer is made and accepted within the same stage. On that note, the costs for each stage in the tables are for the entire amount of work that the Claimant’s solicitor is reasonably expected to undertake for that stage. Therefore, even if they accept the offer out of time within the same stage, the Claimant is receiving no less than what they would have reasonably been entitled to. The same would apply to a Defendant that accepts a Claimant’s Part 36 offer out of time within the same stage.

        On the other hand, I do see merit in your argument, because the Defendant is entitled to recovering costs in fixed costs matter where the Claimant accepts their offer of time in a different stage. However, the injustice or unfairness that you suggest is not yet supported by the CPR or case law. No doubt, I’m sure this will be challenged in the near future.

        Josh

        Josh Coleman

        March 10, 2016 at 5:32 pm

  4. Hi Kerry,

    I don’t think my first post got through, but never mind. How does Broadhurst support your interpretation that the Claimant is entitled to indemnity costs even when the claim does not go to Trial? Broadhurst only discussed what should happen where, in a fixed costs matter, the Claimant beats their Part 36 offer at Trial.

    Josh Coleman

    March 1, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    • Please read the blog. Reference is to judgment not trial. I accept that it is not clear and is a circular argument. If both fixed costs and indemnity costs apply then reference to a staging post must refer to point of settlement, in which case there has been no trial. If on the other hand it refers to date of expiry of Part 36 offer then that is consistent with either settlement or a trial.
      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 8:33 am

      • Hi Kerry,

        Many thanks for your response.

        We clearly agree that indemnity costs run from date of expiry of the Claimant’s Part 36 offer.

        However, we have different opinions on the amount of fixed costs the Claimant is entitled to.

        “If both fixed costs and indemnity costs apply then reference to a staging point must refer to point of settlement…”. I’m not sure I agree.

        I read ‘last staging point’ as reference to the stage (column in Part 45) that the Claimant’s Part 36 offer expires. The Claimant is then entitled to the entire applicable fixed costs for that stage (therefore ‘no apportionment is required’) and in addition they get indemnity costs from the date the Part 36 offer expired up to Trial. This is the ‘generous outcome’ that I believe the Court is referring to.

        Lastly, I must agree with Simon below that is that the decision in Broadhurst is limited to Costs Consequences Following Judgment – 34.14. It does not mean (in my opinion) that the Claimant is also entitled to indemnity costs if the Defendant accepts their Part 36 offer out of time, or in fact any other situation.

        Josh Coleman

        March 2, 2016 at 10:13 am

      • You may be right, but see exchange of comments below with Brian showing that Liverpool County Court followed my line of reasoning.

        kerryunderwood

        March 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm

  5. When I first read this decision, I’d read the words “last staging point” in paragraph 31 in the context of Part 36.14 and in the same way it works for Defendants the other way round. In other words, you get costs to the last staging point the case reached when the Part 36 offer “expired”. You then get indemnity costs after that.

    So if you make a Part 36 offer which expires while the case is pre-issue, you get your pre-issue fixed costs, then costs on the indemnity basis from the date the offer expired up to trial.
    If you make a Part 36 offer just after listing which expires before preparation of case summary, trial bundle index, brief to Counsel etc, you get the fixed costs to listing, then get your work on case summary etc in addition, paid on the indemnity basis.

    You obviously read “last staging point” literally – as in Listing costs. Whenever you beat your own Part 36 offer you get listing costs plus indemnity costs. In those circumstances, I suspect that Gavyn asks the right question – how can you get fixed costs to the last staging point (i.e. Listing) if a Part 36 offer is accepted prior to Listing?

    For that reason, my own interpretation – for what it’s worth – is that the decision is limited to Costs Consequences Following Judgment – 34.14. Exceeding a Part 36 offer pre-trial is inconsequential.

    I also respectively disagree with the earlier comments from Professor Regan. Since the case is limited to costs consequences following Judgment, (in my opinion) then the “generous outcome” would include the fact that trial attendance is not limited to fixed fees for either solicitors or barristers. Of course, generous outcome is only an obiter comment, and there will be circumstances where the outcome is not so generous.

    Food for thought, anyway.

    Simon Green

    March 1, 2016 at 4:56 pm

  6. Simon

    Thank you. I read last staging point as reference to when indemnity costs run from, rather than literally the final staging point. Clearly indemnity costs run from date of expiry of Part 36 offer. The uncertain point is whether fixed costs are calculated to that point or to settlement /judgment.

    Also unclear whether indemnity costs apply on settlement. If not D could see which way the trial is going and if not good accept claimant’s Part 36 months late and pay only fixed costs.

    The more I read the Judgement the more I think that it raises more questions than it answers.

    Kerry

    kerryunderwood

    March 2, 2016 at 8:40 am

  7. Hi Kerry,

    Had a disposal hearing in Liverpool County Court yesterday. We made a P36 on behalf of the Claimant pre-issue which we subsequently beat at the disposal (by all of £65).

    I argued Broadhurst v Tan re fixed trial costs and indemnity costs from the date the P36 became effective to settlement. This included all costs for issuing the case and throughout the proceedings up until Judgment.

    Judge agreed with my points based upon Broadhurst and C was awarded fixed trial costs and pretty much the majority of claimed indemnity costs as well as 10% uplift on damages and 5% uplift on costs for beating our offer.

    All in all, C’s costs were slightly more than double what they would have been if it was FRC only.

    Reaffirms your views that Broadhurst, (if cases ran efficiently in terms of making P36 offers) can result in very good outcomes for Claimant.

    Brian Higgs

    Brian Higgs

    March 2, 2016 at 8:58 am

    • Brian

      Many thanks. To what point did you get fixed costs? The date of expiry of the Part 36 offer or up to and including disposal? See discussion on this point in the comments on this blog.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 9:33 am

      • Hi Kerry,

        P36 was made pre-issue however fixed costs up to and including disposal were awarded (£2655 plus 20% of settlement, VAT and advocacy fee) then indemnity costs from expiry of P36 up to Judgment in addition.

        Judge did not require much persuasion as I basically relayed your views on Broadhurst and she agreed.

        Brian

        Brian Higgs

        March 2, 2016 at 10:48 am

      • Brian

        Thank you very much indeed. Well done.

        Kerry

        kerryunderwood

        March 2, 2016 at 11:46 am

    • I also note that the Court the treated the disposal hearing as a Trial, which is good news. Double FRC ?, that is really good for a disposal hearing,

      Gavyn

      March 2, 2016 at 11:15 am

      • Gavin

        Yes. So Liverpool County Court agrees with the interpretation suggested by Professor Dominic Regan and me.

        Kerry

        kerryunderwood

        March 2, 2016 at 11:51 am

    • Brian

      Very interesting. Thank you!

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      • Hi Kerry,

        I spoke to one of the interested parties solicitors (who wishes to remain anonymous) in the Broadhurst case this afternoon. They confirmed the Order made for costs included fixed costs at the stage the Part 36 expired and then indemnity costs from the date the Part 36 expired up to the date of Judgement.

        I trust the response from Ben Williams QC will confirm this.

        If what they tell me is correct, then Liverpool County Court have erred in their decision to award the £2655 fixed costs.

        Josh

        Josh Coleman

        March 2, 2016 at 2:44 pm

  8. It is what the court says that matters.

    kerryunderwood

    March 2, 2016 at 3:48 pm

  9. I don’t see how, in a PA, you can have a cap AND indemnity costs?? If am awarded indemnity costs and my bill for the assessment proceedings is £2500.00 and the Court assess the bill from the position of indemnity.
    Then says £2500.00 was reasonable incurred but then me cuts down to £1500.00 because of the cap, the Court has vanished an element of ‘indemnity assessing’. . . . . . . ., (give with one hand . . . take with the other) !!

    Gavyn

    March 2, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    • Interesting point. I think in theory you could, but you would expect the appropriate CPR to make that clear, but that may be an unrealistic expectation!

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      March 2, 2016 at 5:37 pm

  10. […] my blog Claimant’s Part 36 Offer Overrides Fixed Costs – dealing with the Broadhurst case I made the following […]

  11. Did anyone get to the bottom of what Dyson meant when he said that apportionment was not necessary? I read it to mean that the entitlement to fixed costs up to the expiry of the relevant period was essentially nominal and the Claimant would recover assessed indemnity costs for the entire case.

    Jonathan Massey

    April 14, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    • Jonathan

      I disagree that the claimant can recover assessed indemnity costs for the entire case. Indemnity costs can only possibly run from the date of expiry of the claimant’s Part 36 offer.

      Otherwise a claimant could make an offer towards the very end of the case and the defendant would be liable for full indemnity costs for a period when it had no opportunity to accept any offer, because there was none on the table.

      I am satisfied that the scenario that you have put forward cannot be right.

      The argument, as dealt with extensively in my blog, is whether the statement that apportionment was not necessary meant that the claimant gets fixed costs for the entire case as well as indemnity costs from 21 days after the date of the offer or whether the claimant gets fixed costs up to expiry of the offer and indemnity costs thereafter.

      The second scenario could still justify a statement that apportionment was not necessary on the basis that you would not need to look within the fixed costs stage to see what work had been done before the Part 36 offer. In other words the claimant gets the whole of that stage even if the offer was made as soon as the line was crossed and the effect would then be that the claimant gets fixed costs for that stage and indemnity costs for the whole of that stage.

      Kerry

      kerryunderwood

      April 19, 2016 at 2:16 pm

  12. ‘Otherwise a claimant could make an offer towards the very end of the case and the defendant would be liable for full indemnity costs for a period when it had no opportunity to accept any offer, because there was none on the table.’

    On considering this, I am definitely in agreement with you.

    Nonetheless, it is regrettable that Lord Dyson wasn’t clearer on the point. I suspect at some stage, parties will clash on the meaning of his words resulting in further litigation in the Court of Appeal.

    Jonathan Massey

    April 26, 2016 at 8:57 pm

  13. […] I deal with the Broadhurst case in my blog post – Claimant’s Part 36 Offer Overrides Fixed Costs. […]

  14. […] CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER OVERRIDES FIXED COSTS […]

  15. […] I deal with the Broadhurst case in my blog post – Claimant’s Part 36 Offer Overrides Fixed Costs. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: