0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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