Haynes v BIS — claimants’ costs are the defendants’ problem
By Chris Wilson
The High Court has reversed a lower court’s decision that an unsuccessful defendant is only liable for a percentage of the successful claimant’s costs where a claim was pursued but not followed through against other liable defendants. Instead, the unsuccessful defendant has to pay all of the common costs that would have been incurred in any event.
The subject of the claim was a divisible asbestos-related disease. A claim was issued but not served against 10 different defendants. The claimant then accepted a Part 36 offer from one defendant for £18,000, slightly less than 10 per cent of the value of the claim, and although liability was not disputed the claim was discontinued against the other nine defendants. A full bill was served on the defendant.
The original decision of the court was that the defendant was only liable for one tenth of the claimant’s costs. However, on appeal, this was overturned with the appeal court dividing the claimant’s costs into two recoverable categories…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Nabarro briefing.
News from Nabarro
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Nabarro
The court considered the application of two clauses seeking to exclude and limit liability in the case of Polypearl Ltd v E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd.
Clauses that were a rarity three or four years ago are now increasingly being tabled in the negotiation phase of a building contract or consultant’s appointment.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Nabarro senior partner and self-confessed “IT geek” Graham Stedman is heralding a major set of investments in technology ahead of the firm’s move to 125 London Wall this year.
Clients are more willing to bring claims against professional service providers but the risk to defendants is not as dramatic as it might seem