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?

The Maersk Co Ltd v Wilson, Court of Appeal, 25 March 2004

1 April 2004
The issues

Costs – Part 36 Offer – Indemnity Costs.

The facts

The Claimant succeeded in an accident for personal injury against the Defendant Shipping Company. At a late stage in the Trial and in written closing submissions, his Counsel developed a different alleged basis for the Defendant’s liability. That argument succeeded. The Claimant had made a Part 36 Offer, which he had beaten. The Trial Judge ordered costs with interest at base rate (but not above) – the costs to be awarded on the standard basis.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. When the Judge realised he had to decide the case on a new footing, it would have been better for specific warning to have been given to the parties in order that submissions might have been invited.

2. Part 36.21 was not an “all or nothing” provision requiring the Court to make all of the orders envisaged by sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Rule. It provided the Judge with a range of possible ways of marking a failure to meet a Part 36 Offer. In the normal case falling within Rule 21, the Judge might no doubt think it just to make all the Orders. In this case however, he made the limited Order that he made on the basis that the point on which the Claimant had succeeded had not been taken in the pleadings and was not advanced in any obvious way until very late in the day. It was open to the Judge to mark that history in his Costs Order. The Judge had exercised his discretion in a way in which the Court of Appeal would not interfere.

Appeal dismissed.

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