Cases 'redefine' CPR

Two cases affecting part 36 settlement offers and security for costs have redefined the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), lawyers have claimed.City firm SJ Berwin acted on what it claimed was the first case in which a defendant's ability to obtain a security for costs order against an individual have been clarified.Under the CPR (part 25.13(2)g), judges are permitted to order security for costs against an individual - previously they could only do so against a company - where the claimant has taken steps that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against his assets.Deputy Master Farringdon held that it was insufficient to show that a claimant had been generally dishonest, or taken steps in the past to deny the existence of his assets.

It would be necessary to show that actual steps had been taken.SJ Berwin partner Hilton Mervis - who acted for the claimant - said: 'This case gives useful guidance in using the new procedure.

It clearly limits the ability of defendants to use the new power as a way of preventing a claimant's access to justice.'Meanwhile, Slough-based firm Harris & Cartwright acted for the claimant in a case which it claims establishes for the first time that indemnity costs may be awarded when a part 36 offer has been refused, even if the case never went to trial.Part 36 is worded to suggest indemnity costs may be awarded where an offer is subsequently beaten by the actual judgment.In this case, a part 36 offer was made acknowledging 100% liability - incapable of being beaten by any later judgment - but the judge held that indemnity costs and enhanced interest should follow anyway.Jeremy Fleming