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?

Chandler v Goodwin

11 March 2002
The issues

Costs – unreasonable conduct – refusal to negotiate.

The facts

The Claimant suffered carbon monoxide poisoning from her gas boiler which was leaking. Liability was admitted but the case proceeded as to causation and quantum. At Case Management, the Defendant asked for a Without Prejudice meeting for the purposes of settlement negotiations. There was no response to the suggestion. Subsequently, the Defendant suggested that Counsel meet in a round-table discussion with the aim of settling the action. Again, the request was ignored. The Defendant paid into Court £328,000.00. The Payment In was rejected. 14 days before Trial the Claimant agreed to a Without Prejudice meeting. At that meeting the Claimant’s Counsel indicated that the Claimant was looking for a figure in excess of £800,000.00. An increased offer of £378,000.00 was put forward but rejected. At Trial, the Claimant offered £525,000.00 which was rejected but settlement was reached at £475,000.00. At the Assessment Hearing in respect of costs, the Defendant argued on the basis of Claimant’s conduct, that all costs between the meeting and Trial should be disallowed on the basis that if the offer of £525,000.00 had been made at that meeting, settlement would have been achieved.

The decision

The circumstances of this case led the Costs Judge to conclude that the Claimant’s Counsel had not made any real efforts to attempt negotiations for settlement. Two thirds of Counsel’s fees were disallowed together with 10% of Claimant’s Solicitors costs from the date of the without prejudice meeting to Trial.

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