0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Alan v Whittle

7 August 2000
The issues

Costs – Payment into Court – subsequent attempt to reduce payment – effects on costs orders following judgment

The facts

The Claimant brought an action against the Defendant for damages following a road traffic accident including a claim for credit hire. The Defendants paid £5,500.00 in to Court prior to Dimond v Lovell. After Dimond v Lovell they indicated that they wished to retract their Payment In and indicated that the offer was reduced to £2,500.00. The Defendant’s solicitors did not apply for leave to reduce the Payment In.

At Trial the Claimant was awarded £5,498.00. The District Judge ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs from the date of the Payment In. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

The District Judge’s exercise of the discretion was wrong in principle. The Defendant’s solicitors had represented that the money in Court should be regarded as having been reduced to £2,500.00 and although the Claimant did not apply to take the Payment out the Court was satisfied that had he done so, the Defendant would have objected and successfully reduced the Payment In. The correct order was for the Claimant to have his costs of the Trial save for that period of time during which the full Payment Into Court was available for acceptance in respect of which short period the Claimant would pay the Defendant’s costs.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up