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?

Read v Edmed, High Court, 8 December 2004

14 December 2004
The issues

Costs – Part 36 Offer – Offer Matched By Award – Whether Indemnity Costs Appropriate

The facts

The Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in November 2000 when she was knocked off a bicycle by a car driven by the Defendant. The matter was ordered to be tried on the issue of liability and any related issue of causation as a preliminary issue. Before proceedings the Claimant’s solicitors had offered to settle the case on a 50/50 basis by means of a Part 36 Offer.

The Defendant’s insurers had rejected that offer. When the matter was heard before the Trial Judge preliminary issues were decided on precisely that 50/50 basis. The issue arose as to whether the Claimant should be entitled to indemnity costs from 21 days after the date of the original offer.

The decision

As a matter of principle, where in a relatively uncomplicated claim for damages for personal injuries a valid Part 36 Offer or some other admissible offer had been made to settle a liability issue and the Court gave Judgment in the terms of the offer, the Claimant should be entitled to the benefit of an award of indemnity costs. The only exception to that principle would be if there was some particular circumstance such as a change in the nature of the case or unreasonable conduct on behalf of the Claimant.

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