PATRICK MCGREEVY v PETER KIRAMBA

A clear and unqualified acceptance of a settlement offer concludes a binding agreement on the terms offered. A later Part 36 offer cannot alter that agreement. Where Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 36.20(2) applies, acceptance within the relevant period entitles the claimant to the prescribed fixed costs and does not permit recovery of additional costs under rule 45.29J. A claim is not exceptional merely because it would have been suitable for allocation to the multi-track before settlement. Exceptionality must be assessed against the whole basket of claims within the fixed-costs regime.

The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident and initially pursued the claim under the RTA Protocol. The claim later exited the Portal because further medical evidence was required. Proceedings were issued and the parties considered the claim suitable for the multi-track, but settlement occurred before allocation.

The defendant made a time-limited Calderbank offer of £100,000, stating that costs would be paid under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 45.29C. The claimant accepted it without qualification. The defendant later made a Part 36 offer for the same sum, which the claimant purported to accept while seeking standard-basis costs. The issues were whether the June correspondence formed a binding settlement, whether the July Part 36 offer was accepted, and whether costs exceeding the fixed costs could be claimed under rule 45.29J.

1. Binding settlement. The parties reached a concluded agreement on 25 June 2021. Applying ordinary contractual principles, the claimant’s email was a clear and unqualified acceptance of the Calderbank offer. The heading “Without Prejudice Save as to Costs” did not alter its substance. The later Part 36 offer could not supersede the agreement.

2. The June offer expressly limited recoverable costs to those payable under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 45.29C. The claimant accepted that term. The factual matrix, the proposed multi-track allocation and the parties’ differing views of the claim’s value could not be used to introduce a standard-basis costs term which had not been offered.

3. Part 36 offer. The claimant did not accept the 1 July Part 36 offer. His response rejected the offer’s costs terms by seeking assessment on the standard basis. Rules 36.13 and 36.20 are mutually exclusive where rule 36.20 applies.

4. Alternative conclusion on rule 36.20. If the July offer had been accepted, rule 36.20(2) would still have limited recovery to the fixed costs in Table 6B. Its plain wording contained no basis for importing a further right to claim under rule 45.29J. Hislop v Perde was not assistance because it concerned late acceptance by a defendant and did not construe rule 36.20(2).

5. Exceptional circumstances. The claim was not exceptional merely because it was suitable for the multi-track. Under Ferri v Gill and Qader v Esure Services Ltd, exceptionality must be assessed against all claims within the Part IIIA fixed-costs regime, including claims which leave the Portal because of value or complexity. The fixed-costs regime continues until allocation to the multi-track.

6. The claimant was therefore limited to £100,000 in damages and the fixed costs under rule 45.29C and Table 6B. Any application for enhanced costs under rule 45.29J would have failed.

The judgment was a first-instance determination in the Senior Courts Costs Office following settlement of the underlying personal injury claim. The matter had been transferred from the County Court at Reading for determination of the recoverable costs.