2015 Award for Most Bizarre Argument Advanced in Replies

2015 Award for Most Bizarre Argument Advanced in Replies goes to the following included in reply arguing why costs were not disproportionate in matter which settled pre-trial for £2,500:

“At the start of the claim, the Claimant made a Part 36 offer to settle the matter in the sum of £10,000. Relative to the costs that have since been incurred by both parties, had the Defendant’s accepted this sum or a lesser but similar figure the total figure for costs and damages would have been substantially lower than have ultimately proven to be.”

4 thoughts on “2015 Award for Most Bizarre Argument Advanced in Replies

  1. …I now embrace the sweet release of fixed fees…

    It’s certainly….one way to look at it, I suppose!

  2. Well I certainly have the front runner for most bizarre argument raised in Points of Dispute re departing from guideline hourly rates “In the event that the court is not with me and willing to consider an enhancement in this case, one should “start with a norm of 35%” (Brush v Bower Cotton & Bower [1993] 4 ALL ER 741 QBD)”

  3. You can’t help but laugh at some of the replies you see. Then again, some of the things you see in PODs are equally laughable.

  4. You have to give them credit for ingenuity – it’s certainly a novel argument.

    Wrong… but novel. Could you then make a counter-wrong-argument that costs are not recoverable at all via the operation of the indemnity principle?

    After all, if they’re using the standard CFA model, their definition of “win” will likely include reference to a “more avantageous sum”… and they seem to have strange ideas about how that works.

    Fair play to whomesoever drafted those Replies. The system is descending – in ever decreasing circles – into farce, why shouldn’t we?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>