0370 270 6000

Huck v Robson, Court of Appeal

25 March 2002
The issues

Costs – indemnity costs – Part 36 Offers.

The facts

The Claimant offered to split liability on a 95/5 basis, the Claimant conceding 5%. At Trial, the Claimant succeeded completely. The Claimant asked for indemnity costs and interest at an enhanced rate. The Judge refused the Application on the basis that the offer was “illusory” in that no Judge ever apportioned liability on such a split.

The decision

1. Costs were discretionary. It was open therefore to a Judge to ignore offers that were purely tactical.

2. The Claimant might well have made the offer in order to achieve a speedy outcome to the claim.

3. Even though no Judge would in reality be likely to order such a split, the offer had been an opportunity to settle. It was not unjust that the Defendant should suffer the consequences of his failure to settle.

Appeal allowed.

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