The High Court has upheld a County Court decision to award the claimants their costs (estimated at £200,000) following a trial in which they were awarded damages of £10.

The dispute in Shah & Anor v Shah & Anor [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) (21 June 2021) concerned a dispute over contractual obligations relating to a property in Goa. The claimant sought damages of £30,000 but was awarded £10 at trial.

The court heard that budgets of both sides were approved at in excess of £100,000 and the claimants' costs were now in excess of £200,000.

The claimants had made a Part 36 offer of £1 plus payment of their costs which HHJ Saggerson found to be 'operative' for the purposes of Part 36. He stated that the claimants had been prepared to 'bend' with their offer, whereas the defendants had been 'unbendable' and the court could not depart from the provisions of 36.17 just because it produced a harsh result.

At the costs hearing the defendants had argued that the offer was not a genuine offer to settle; rather it was 'an attempt to game the system'. Rejecting that argument and dismissing the appeal, Mrs Justice Collins Rice stated that the costs rules had been correctly applied and she could find no proper basis for interfering with the original decision.

More Info

The High Court has upheld a County Court decision to award the claimants their costs (estimated at £200,000) following a trial in which they were awarded damages of £10.

The dispute in Shah & Anor v Shah & Anor [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) (21 June 2021) concerned a dispute over contractual obligations relating to a property in Goa. The claimant sought damages of £30,000 but was awarded £10 at trial.

The court heard that budgets of both sides were approved at in excess of £100,000 and the claimants' costs were now in excess of £200,000.

The claimants had made a Part 36 offer of £1 plus payment of their costs which HHJ Saggerson found to be 'operative' for the purposes of Part 36. He stated that the claimants had been prepared to 'bend' with their offer, whereas the defendants had been 'unbendable' and the court could not depart from the provisions of 36.17 just because it produced a harsh result.

At the costs hearing the defendants had argued that the offer was not a genuine offer to settle; rather it was 'an attempt to game the system'. Rejecting that argument and dismissing the appeal, Mrs Justice Collins Rice stated that the costs rules had been correctly applied and she could find no proper basis for interfering with the original decision.

More Info