Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

COSTS: To fix or not to fix?

26 October 2017  

Paul Jones considers the potential conflict between fixed costs and Part 36 offers

The system of fixed costs, which covers a significant proportion of personal injury claims, tends to work very well with the majority of cases. However, it is on the margins, particularly where the rules abut against other non-fixed-costs rules, that friction can occur and the recent case of McKeown v Venton [2017], dealing with the interface between fixed costs and Part 36 offers, exemplifies this problem.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Broadhurst & anor v Tan & anor [2016] EWCA Civ 94

    Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspeden & Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879

    Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 274 (TCC)

    McKeown & anor v Venton (2017) unreported, Liverpool CC, HHJ Wood QC, 12 June

    Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 512

    Richardson v Wakefield Council (2017) unreported, Leeds CC, HHJ Gosnell, 9 June

    Sutherland v Khan (2016) unreported, Hull CC, DJ Besford, 21 April

Last modified on 24 October 2017