Part 36 ruling
The provisions of the pre-April 2015 rule 36.14(3) can be considered separately and are not a complete code, the High Court has ruled.
Last week, Lawtel reported RXDX v Northampton Borough Council in the Queen’s Bench Division, in which a part 36 offer was beaten at trial and the judge ordered indemnity costs to run throughout plus interest from the date that the offer expired. He made no order in relation to additional costs as to rule 36.14(a) or (d) on the basis that, where nothing had been known to either side as to the value of the claim, it would be unjust to apply those provisions under the circumstances.
The claimant submitted that the judge did not have the power to make no order because the rule was a complete code. The defendant argued that it was open to the judge to consider each sub-paragraph separately and assess if its application would be unjust in the circumstances.
Reading the plain language of the rule, the judge Sir Colin Mackay preferred the defendant’s construction, according to Lawtel.
EAT overturns costs ruling
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a £2,500 costs order made against a claimant who had been blamed for the adjournment of her case.
Ruling in Schaathun v Executive & Business Aviation Support Ltd [2015] UKEAT 0615_11_1307, Mrs Justice Slade said that the employment judge had come to an impermissible conclusion on the facts in finding that the claimant had asked the tribunal to make a Norwegian interpreter available at the hearing.
Due to the unavailability of an interpreter, the tribunal had adjourned the hearing and later made the costs order against the claimant on the basis that, in the circumstances, her request was unreasonable.
However, Slade J, sitting with Mr G Lewis, said: “Employment Judge Lewis erred in construing the claimant’s email of 9 November 2010 as a request that the tribunal make a Norwegian interpreter available for the substantive hearing. The claimant was asking if it was possible for an interpreter to be present. She did not indicate that she would or was applying for an adjournment if that was not possible. That this is the natural interpretation of the claimant’s email of 9 November is supported by the understanding of the solicitors for the respondent… A reading that the claimant had applied for the tribunal to provide an interpreter was not open to the Employment Judge.”
Furthermore, she was not responsible for the adjournment of the proceedings because the tribunal could not provide an interpreter. The claimant was not asked whether she would proceed without one or whether she was proposing to provide her own interpreter.
Legal Ombudsman delay
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has delayed the introduction of a new rule that extends the time clients have to complain to it from six months to a year. In an update issued last week on various changes being made as a result of regulations made to implement the EU ADR Directive, which came into force on 9 July, LeO said it now expects its changes to be implemented no later than 9 January 2016.
The changes will also allow LeO to investigate “aged” complaints, removing the requirement that the complaint must be referred no later than six years from the act/omission or three years from when the complainant should reasonably have known there was cause for complaint.