header-logo header-logo

19 October 2012 / James Sharpe
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

A waiting game

istock_000017086765large_4

James Sharpe provides an update on costs protection & protected parties

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053, [2012] All ER (D) 16 (Aug) is an instance where the court departed from the normal costs rule in CPR 36.10(5) whereby the party accepting a Pt 36 offer after the 21-day period for its acceptance must bear his and the other party’s costs incurred subsequently.

In March 2003, the claimant was injured at age six in a road traffic accident. He sustained facial scarring and a severe head injury with damage to the frontal lobes of the brain. Medical evidence was obtained with a view to quantifying the claim, but the experts felt unable to predict the impact of the injury until the claimant matured. On 2 April 2009, the defendant made a pre-action CPR Pt 36 offer in the sum of £500,000 by way of full and final settlement of the claimant’s claim. Following this,

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

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
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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll