Report comment

"it does of course cut both ways though - so everyone needs to be reasonable"

Actually it doesn't cut both ways. If a Claimant beats a part 36 offer they get costs on indemnity basis, 10% on the bill and additional interest. If a Defendant beats own offer means def gets costs subject to £1500 cap.

By "good decision" I think you mean pro-claimant decision. Re Sutherland the rules say accepting a pt 36 out of time is the usual rule and the party who accepts late pays the other sides costs after the relevant period has expired. this is the usual order "unless unjust". I am not sure why you think imputing a rule that does not exist for additional 10% and indemnity costs. I assume you think it would always be unjust not to deviate from the rules. My defendant view would be if that was the rule (which it isn;t) you as well go to a hearing and take your chances as settle and get stung for indemnity costs. It provides a disincentive to settling.

Incidentally do these defendants who force "detailed assessment" not already have to pay 10% extra on the bill and the claimant's costs if you beat your own Part 36. Doesn't sound like a particularly bright defendant tactic to me.

Finally the rationale in Tan (which was correct IMO) doesn't apply to the rule here. Obviously claimant's like judgments like this but isn't right under the rules.

Interestingly how can anyone reasonably incur more than £1500 anyway in proceedings that don't go to a hearing.