0370 270 6000

Dyson Limited v Hoover Limited, Chancery Division

30 October 2002
The issues

Costs – Part 36 Offer – Claimant accepting Part 36 Payment more advantageous than previous Part 36 Offer made by Claimant – indemnity costs.

The facts

The Claimant had made a Part 36 Offer in this infringement of patent case, which was worth about £1.5 million. The Defendant had subsequently made a Part 36 Payment of £4.0 million which was accepted. The Claimant argued that pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 36.21 it was entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis until the date of its acceptance of the Part 36 Payment.

The decision

1. Where a Claimant accepted a Part 36 Payment, the Court had no discretion as to the basis of costs. See Part 36.13 (4). Even if the Court had a discretion, which it did not, it was not a discretion which could ever be properly exercised, since it was impossible to determine the reasonableness of the rejection by the Defendant of the initial Part 36 Offer without going behind the parties’ settlement.


This might prove rather a useful case in those difficult circumstances where indemnity costs loom!

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