header-logo header-logo

Costs—Order for costs—Indemnity costs

31 March 2011
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Southwark London Borough Council v IBM UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 653 (TCC), [2011] All ER (D) 261 (Mar)

Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J, 21 Mar 2011

The TCC has reiterated the principles on which the court will make an order for indemnity costs.

Nicholas Stewart QC (instructed by the Legal services Department of Southwark Borough Council) for the authority. Jeremy Nicholson QC and Terence Bergin (instructed by Blake Lapthorn) for the defendant.

The claimant local authority brought proceedings against the defendant company for damages in respect of, inter alia, breach of a contract in relation to software contractually supplied to the authority by the defendant company, which was to be provided in connection with the implementation of a master data management system. On 10 January 2011, the defendant’s solicitors made an offer to settle the action on the basis that each side pay its own costs. That offer was to remain open until 4pm on 14 January 2011. The authority rejected the offer, however, and the matter proceeded to trial.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll