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

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

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).


Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.


Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.


Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.


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