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?

Codent Limited v Lyson Limited, Court of Appeal, 8 December 2005

6 January 2006
The issues

Costs – Part 36 Offer – Crouch v Kings Healthcare – Trustees of Stokes Pension Fund v Western Power Distribution

The facts

The Defendant was sued for breach of contract. He issued a counter claim. It made a written offer to pay £100,000.00 in full and final settlement and to waive its counter claim and to pay the costs of the action. The offer was refused. The Claimant was successful but failed to beat the offer at Trial. The Claimant argued that the offer was ineffective as it could have been supported by a Payment into Court. The Judge agreed. The Defendant appealed.

The decision

The Judge had relied on Crouch v Kings Healthcare and did not have the benefit of the decision in Trustees of Stokes Pension Fund. He had decided the issue on the basis that the offer either was effective or had no effect at all. He did not consider the issue raised in Stokes as to whether some position in the middle was possible. As a result his decision was wrong in principle. The costs order was clearly unjust to the Defendant. However, the Court would take account of the fact that the offer had not been made more than 21 days before Trial and had not been left open for 21 days. In the circumstances the right order was that the Claimant should have 70% of its costs of the action up to the first day of Trial and the Defendant its costs thereafter.

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