Report comment

An alternative headline would be: Defendant fails to wiggle out of agreed consent order.

As the first commentator notes, the judgment does not relax the costs rule. It says that the Defendant should be held to an agreed consent order which was plain in its meaning.

Of huge significance is that:
- The Claimant had issued an application to re-allocate the track to the multi-track.
- That application was due to be heard within the 21 day period of the Defendant's offer.
- The Defendant had confirmed in writing they would consent to the re-allocation
- The hearing was vacated as terms of settlement had been agreed (including an express provision stating costs to be assessed on standard basis, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed).

The Defendant then issued an application for costs to be dealt with on a fixed costs basis. I am staggered that the DDJ gave them any time at all, let alone grant the application.