header-logo header-logo

14 March 2013
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Incentives to settle

New costs rules to come into force next month

Rules encouraging parties to settle early, or risk paying out more if they lose, are due to come into force next month as part of the Jackson roll-out.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) allows for an additional amount to be paid to a claimant by a defendant in cases where the defendant has refused the claimant’s offer to settle and the court has given judgment for the claimant which is at least as advantageous to the claimant as the claimant’s offer. Bringing this new regime into practice, The Offers to Settle in Civil Proceedings Order 2013 sets out the percentage of damages which a defendant may be ordered to pay out on top. In offers up to £500,000 this will be 10% of the amount of damages awarded; above £500,000 and up to £1m, it will be 10% of the first £500,000 and 5% of the damages awarded above £500,000; while, for amounts above £1m, the figures are 7.5% of the first £1m and 0.001% of the damages awarded above that figure.

Janna Purdie, of LexisPSL Dispute Resolution, said apparent discrepancies between the 2013 Order and Pt 36, CPR could be explained. “Pt 36 provides for 10% of the first £500,000 and 5% above, up to £1m, namely a composite rate of 7.5% for awards of £1m. The 0.001% required by the 2013 Order arose from a requirement to set a prescribed percentage in s 55(3) of LASPO. Following concern that a percentage of 0% or nil per cent would not comply with this requirement, 0.001% was set so that effectively no additional amount will be paid over £1m. The CPR Committee considered that, as, in practice, no percentage will apply to figures over £1m, it need not be addressed in Pt 36.”
 

Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

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
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’
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll