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?

Hooper v Biddle Company, Chancery Division, 11 October 2006

17 October 2006
The issues

Costs – exaggerated claim – cost consequences.

The facts

The Applicants looked for an Order that the Respondent firm pay their costs following an action in which they had sought damages from that firm. They had initially stated that the claim was £3.75 million. Draft Particulars of Claim were served, in which that figure appeared. When the Particulars of Claim were finally served the claim had diminished to £350,000.00. A joint expert put the loss at £38,000.00. A Part 36 offer was made in that sum by the Respondent, which was rejected. The Respondent then made an offer of £38,000.00 without prejudice and with no Order for costs attached. That was also rejected. The next offer was an open offer of £38,000.00 with no interest but with a provision for the Court to determine costs. That offer was accepted. The Applicant argued that they had “won” the litigation and should get back all their costs. The Respondent argued that the claim had been grossly inflated and that the Applicant should not receive all or any of their costs.

The decision

The Court could consider a party’s conduct when assessing costs (see CPR Rule 44.3(2)(b)). It could not be concluded that the Applicant had won because they had not recovered a way of settlement what they might have recovered had the case gone to Trial. They had accepted an offer representing only 10% of the pleaded claim. The Applicant had taken a costs risk when deciding to accept a settlement that did not include costs as an automatic provision. The claim had been exaggerated throughout. Relying on Painting v University of Oxford the Claimant’s Application for costs would be refused and no Order would be made.

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