0370 270 6000

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

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