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

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

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