29th March 2016
Civil Procedure & Landlord & Tenant
Summary: The Court of Appeal has held that a Part 36 offer and a subsequent payment pursuant to a partial admission of liability, could not be aggregated to increase the value of a Part 36 offer. An admitted payment on account of a claim, following a Part 36 offer in a higher amount, had, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to be taken as being made as much on account of the Part 36 offer as on account of the claim itself.
Facts: Mr MacLeish (M), as landlord, brought a claim against his colleagues in a solicitors’ partnership (L), as tenants, following the termination of lease of office premises in Snaresbrook, London. M sued for damages for breach of L’s repairing obligations in the sum of £74,820.93 plus interest.
M served his claim form on 30 January 2013. On 13 February 2013 L made an offer to settle pursuant to Part 36 on the basis L would pay M £35,000 in full and final settlement of the claim. On 1 March 2013 L served their defence in which they admitted liability in the aggregate amount of £17,504 which was subsequently paid to M.
In October 2013 M made a Part 36 offer to accept the sum of £54,000 inclusive of interest and VAT but less the £17,504 already paid on account. L suggested that this offer was only £1496 apart from their own Part 36 offer, it being implicit in their response to the claim that the £35,000 had been available for acceptance in full, without M having to give credit for the £17,504 already paid pursuant to the admissions.
After a full trial, M was awarded damages of £48,409.40 together with interest and agreed service charges, with an agreed small deduction for an agreed insurance premium rebate. The judge ordered L to pay M’s costs of the proceedings, on the standard basis. She rejected L’s argument
Mr MacLeish (M), as landlord, brought a claim against his colleagues in a solicitors’ partnership (L), as tenants, following the termination of lease of office premises in Snaresbrook, London. M sued for damages for breach of L’s repairing obligations in the sum of £74,820.93 plus interest.
M served his claim form on 30 January 2013. On 13 February 2013 L made an offer to settle pursuant to Part 36 on the basis L would pay M £35,000 in full and final settlement of the claim. On 1 March 2013 L served their defence in which they admitted liability in the aggregate amount of £17,504 which was subsequently paid to M.
In October 2013 M made a Part 36 offer to accept the sum of £54,000 inclusive of interest and VAT but less the £17,504 already paid on account. L suggested that this offer was only £1496 apart from their own Part 36 offer, it being implicit in their response to the claim that the £35,000 had been available for acceptance in full, without M having to give credit for the £17,504 already paid pursuant to the admissions.
After a full trial, M was awarded damages of £48,409.40 together with interest and agreed service charges, with an agreed small deduction for an agreed insurance premium rebate. The judge ordered L to pay M’s costs of the proceedings, on the standard basis. She rejected L’s argument
that their Part 36 offer should be aggregated with the £17,504 payment following admissions for the purpose of deciding whether one party had ‘beaten’ a Part 36 offer.
Both parties appealed in relation to points on costs. L appealed on the basis that the judge was wrong to award M his costs because he had failed to beat a Part 36 offer make within days of service of the claim form. M sought to uphold the judge’s decision on costs, but cross-appealed on the ground that the judge should have made the award on the indemnity basis, so as to reflect his contractual entitlement to an indemnity for costs incurred in the recovery of sums due from the defendants as tenants under a term of the lease.
Issues:
Decision on Appeal:
1) In Briggs LJ’s judgment, the true analysis of the relationship between the Part 36 offer and the admissions payment is as follows:
It follows M had obtained a judgment more advantageous that the value of the Part 36 offer, within the meaning of CPR 36.14(1)(a), so the judge was correct to award M his costs.
2) The cross-appeal was allowed and M was awarded costs on an indemnity basis because Briggs LJ held that:
Disclaimer
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/ or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.