Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I think we are all losing the wood from the trees with costs. This is mixed up and questionable thinking.

Indemnity Costs are there to compensate alone for extra work. So, running a case that is not struck out summarily is by logic running a case that implicitly the other side and/or the Court perceives to have some merits.

That itself should mitigate against any IC 'award'. On what basis with practical examples can anyone on here give, when it could it be said otherwise? What extra work has been necessary that otherwise could have been avoided by striking the case out?

The Part 36 question is more pertinent. If a costs offer whether truly in Part 36 terms or Calderbank terms that is turned down may justify an IC order for the extra work required therefrom .....

Your details

Cancel