Box Legal Logo
Home > ATE Caselaw > J P Finnegan v Spiers (t/a Frank Spiers Licensed Conveyancers) (2018)

J P Finnegan v Spiers (t/a Frank Spiers Licensed Conveyancers) (2018)

J P Finnegan v Spiers (t/a Frank Spiers Licensed Conveyancers) (2018)

The Issues

The question arose as to whether or not the court has power to order a payment on account of costs following acceptance of a Part 36 offer under rule 36.13 and so by rule 44.9(1) it is deemed that a costs order has been made on the standard basis.

Held

The case came before Mr Justice Birss sitting in the High Court.

In finding that the courts have no power to order the payment of costs on account after a Part 36 offer is accepted, Mr Justice Birss favoured the argument that Part 36 is a complete code. “Rule 36.1(1) says so and this is supported by the authorities.”

Mr Justice Birss held that Part 36 itself makes no provision for payments on account and that

there was no reason to read that rule 44.2(8) provides for payments on account of costs when a part 36 offer is accepted.

Comment

The position seems fairly clear following an acceptance of a Part 36 offer, but what are the alternatives - should you seek a payment on account of costs following settlement of a claim?

 

If and when Detailed Assessment is requested, perhaps it would be prudent to apply for an Interim Costs Certificate at the same time, if the paying party has not been willing to make a payment on account up to that point pursuant to CPR 47.16.

 

DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE



< Back to case list




We use cookies to improve your experience of our website. Click here to read more.