Laurence Seeff (1) & Sara Seeff (2) v. Dinh Nam Ho (1) & Bich Thuy Ton Nu (2) [2011] EWCA Civ 401<\/p>\n
Appellant\u2019s offer ruled to be compliant with Part 36 despite imposing a 14 day time limit. Costs determined following a successful appeal in a boundary dispute whereby it was found that dismissal of a claim for trespass and an award of costs against the appellant was wrong.
\nCourt allowed appellant\u2019s appeal against a decision dismissing part of his claim for trespass against the respondents and ordering them to pay the respondents\u2019 costs.
\nAppellant made a Part 36 offer to settle, in their offer they required respondent to pay back the costs within 14 days. Respondent responded with a counter offer, and contended that the offer made by appellant was not a Part 36 as it required respondent to repay costs within a 14 day time limit.
\nCourt ruled that appellant\u2019s offer was compliant with Part 36, in any event, appellant made it clear that if the offer was in any way defective or non-compliant with part 36, to let them know as soon as possible. It was clear that respondents treated the offer as a Part 36 offer. Appellant entitled to recover 75% of their costs on indemnity basis and the costs paid to the respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Laurence Seeff (1) & Sara Seeff (2) v. Dinh Nam Ho (1) & Bich Thuy Ton Nu (2) [2011] EWCA Civ 401 Appellant\u2019s offer ruled to be compliant with Part 36 despite imposing a 14 day time limit. Costs determined … Continue reading