Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited

Where a Part 36 offer in an ex-Protocol claim is accepted after the relevant period, rule 36.20 governs the costs consequences if the claim remained within Section IIIA of Part 45 when that period expired. Later allocation to the multi-track does not retrospectively erase the claim’s earlier place within the fixed-cost regime for this purpose. The claimant is therefore confined to the applicable fixed costs rather than standard-basis costs. Rule 36.20 is the specific provision for such offers and takes precedence over general fixed-cost provisions if a conflict arises. This construction promotes certainty and Part 36’s early-settlement purpose.

The claimant’s road traffic personal injury claim began under the RTA Protocol, exited after liability was disputed, and was issued under Part 7. The defendant made a Part 36 offer before the claim was allocated to the multi-track. The claimant accepted after expiry of the relevant period, by which time the claim had been allocated to the multi-track.

HHJ Duddridge held that only fixed costs were recoverable. Stacey J allowed the claimant’s appeal and held that standard-basis costs were recoverable: [2025] EWHC 884 (KB). The defendant appealed. The central issue was whether rule 36.20 or rule 36.13 governed the costs consequences, and whether later multi-track allocation retrospectively removed the claim from the fixed-cost regime.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed and the order of HHJ Duddridge was restored. Lady Justice Falk and Lord Justice Lewison agreed with the judgment of Lord Justice Miles.
2. Applicable rule. Part 36 is a self-contained and prescriptive procedural code. Rule 36.13 is expressly subject to rule 36.20. Rule 36.20 applies where a claim started under the RTA Protocol no longer continues under that Protocol. The claim fell within Section IIIA of Part 45 when issued and remained within it when the relevant period expired. Rule 36.20 therefore governed the costs consequences, rather than rule 36.13.
3. Effect of later allocation. Rule 36.20(4) entitled the claimant to the fixed costs applicable to the stage at the date when the relevant period expired. The later allocation to the multi-track did not retrospectively require the claim to be treated as if it had never fallen within Section IIIA. The temporal wording of rule 45.29B indicated prospective operation. The court explained that Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 did not establish a wider rule governing the interaction between Part 45 and Part 36. Its reasoning that disapplication did not carry back to the pre-allocation stage supported the court’s conclusion. The same prospective understanding was reflected in Ho v Adelekun (No. 1) [2019] EWCA Civ 1988.
4. Construction and purpose. There was no conflict between rule 36.20 and rule 45.29B. If there had been, the specific rule 36.20 would have prevailed over the general fixed-cost provisions, applying the approach in Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1584. The construction also furthered Part 36’s purpose of encouraging early settlement and ensuring that a defendant’s costs liability could be anchored to the costs environment at expiry of the relevant period.
5. Unresolved issues. The alternative ground based on Williams v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 was unnecessary to decide. The court expressed no concluded view on offers made after multi-track allocation or on cases where allocation occurred during the relevant period, noting that clarification by the Rules Committee might be beneficial.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 4 March 2026, allowed the defendant’s appeal and restored the order limiting the claimant to fixed costs.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: Stacey J allowed the claimant’s appeal from the County Court and held that standard-basis costs were recoverable: [2025] EWHC 884 (KB).
3. County Court: HHJ Duddridge held that the claimant was restricted to fixed costs.