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?

Jackson v Ministry of Defence, Court of Appeal, 12 January 2006

17 January 2006
The issues

Part 36 Offer – Exaggerated Claim – Joint Settlement Meeting – Costs

The facts

The Claimant sued the Defendant in a personal injury action. The Trial proceeded on quantum only. The Claimant had a large claim for future loss of earnings and adapted accommodation. Those claims were abandoned when the medical evidence did not support the claims. The effect on the claim was to reduce it from over a million pounds to a quarter of a million pounds. The Part 36 Payment into Court was made in the sum of £150,000.00. The Defendants were ordered to attend a Pre Trial joint settlement meeting. The meeting was unsuccessful. At Trial the Claimant was awarded £155,000.00. The Judge reduced the Claimant’s costs by 25% to reflect the fact that the award had only just beaten the payment into Court and also to reflect the fact that the Claimant had exaggerated his evidence. The Ministry of Defence appealed on the basis that the reduction should have been greater to reflect the increase in costs that had been caused by the exaggeration and that the Judge should have taken into account the joint settlement meeting.

The decision

1. The process in respect of joint settlement meetings was confidential. Offers made and rejected were confidential unless they were clearly stated to be without prejudice as to costs.

2. A further Part 36 Offer could have been made by the Ministry of Defence after the unsuccessful joint settlement meetings. The Ministry of Defence had not done so. The Judge had taken into account the fact that the payment in had only just been beaten. Specific items could be challenged on Detailed Assessment. The reduction in costs was likely to act as a disincentive to Claimants who sought to make exaggerated claims. The order made was within the discretion of the Judge.

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