header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2011
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Costs—Order for costs—Indemnity costs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll