0370 270 6000

Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGM Limited, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2002

12 February 2002
The issues

Costs – Without Prejudice – costs consequences.

The facts

The party in whose favour an Order for costs had been made on Appeal sought the costs of that Appeal on an indemnity basis. The successful Respondent to the Appeal had won £105,000.00 in a libel action. They offered to accept without prejudice £75,000.00 when the Appellants appealed. That offer was ignored. The Respondents sought costs on an indemnity basis under Part 44.

The decision

1. In Reid Minty -v- Taylor, the Court of Appeal decided that conduct (falling short of miss-conduct) could be so unreasonable as to justify an Order against the guilty party on the indemnity basis. There is a distinction between an Indemnity Costs Order made under Part 36 and one made under Part 44. The latter was penal in nature.

2. To refuse a settlement offer would very rarely attract an Order for costs on an indemnity basis under Part 44.

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