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?

Craig v Rail Track Plc, High Court

27 February 2002
The issues

Costs – indemnity – Part 36 Offers – admission of liability.

The facts

The Claimants were injured in an accident in March 1996 when the train they were on collided with wagons that had come loose from another engine. The matter was listed for a Liability Trial. Liability was conceded 6 days before the Trial was due to take place. They applied for their costs on indemnity basis.

The decision

1. They were not entitled to rely on 36.21 (providing the Court may award costs on an indemnity basis and interest on those costs at a rate no higher than 10% above base where at Trial a Defendant is held liable for more or Judgment is more advantageous to the Claimant than proposals contained in a Claimant’s Part 36 Offer). That Rule applied only where a Trial had taken place.

2. The Court retained its discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 44.3 (dealing with Court’s discretion generally as to costs).

3. It had taken the Defendants 5 years to admit liability. This was too long and unreasonably so. The Defendant should have been in a position to assess their liability by October 1999.

4. Accordingly, indemnity costs would be allowed from that date. Costs prior to that date would be paid on the standard basis.

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