PT-2022-BRS-000100 - [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch)

Having reviewed the entire correspondence between the parties since the acceptance of the Part 36 offer (of which the extracts given above are just a part), I am quite satisfied that the failure of the parties to complete the transaction in a timely fashion is largely the fault of the claimant. In my judgment the defendants were justified in making the application of 24 April 2025. The fact that they did not win every point that they argued does not mean that they cannot be regarded as the successful party in achieving the order which I made. On the contrary, overall I think that they were. Accordingly, if the costs “general rule” applies, I should order the claimant to pay the defendants’ costs of the application.

As I have already said, the claimant says that the defendants have not demonstrated various matters to bring the application within CPR rule 36.14(8), and so it could not succeed anyway. He also says that the application was premature, and, thirdly, that the court could not have made an order under section 39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.