Glorianny
Germanshepherdsmum
This is a perfectly normal tactic in civil proceedings. If the defendant makes an offer to settle which is higher than the amount of damages the court awards, the claimant may be liable to pay the defendant’s costs despite having won his case. This is because parties are encouraged to settle and not to waste the court’s time by pursuing a claim out of sheer vindictiveness.
It’s not a disgusting system. It has been in place for a very long time, for good reason.
So basically what you are saying is it is OK for someone to break the law as long as they can afford to buy off the person they have offended against. And it is OK to keep offering someone more and more money until you reach a figure which they are unlikely to get in any court action, and then threaten them with your legal fees if they don't settle.
It may be legal, it isn't moral
It means the law is only available to those who have enough money and won't be intimidated.
No, that’s not what I am saying, as you know full well. This procedure has its roots in the 1976 case of Calderbank v Calderbank so is nothing new, and there is also a specific procedure covering offers to settle set out in the Civil Procedure Rules. If a claimant in a civil case seeks damages and is offered say £1m by the defendant to settle but refuses and presses on with their action but the court decides the appropriate measure of damages is £500k, then they have been wasting the court’s time and the defendant’s costs by refusing to accept an offer which their counsel would most likely have advised them was sensible. Counsel in civil proceedings know what level of damages is likely to be awarded if their client succeeds. Claimants are not ‘threatened’ by the defendant with a claim for costs - you make it sound so dramatic - it is the law that the court will very likely make an order for the defendant to pay the wasted costs if he has refused an offer greater than the court considers the appropriate level of damages. It’s absolutely nothing to do with justice only being available to those who have money and won’t be intimidated. More drama. If the defendant insists on pursuing their action when it will end at best in a Pyrrhic victory, I would call that ignoring advice, wasting court time and the defendant’s legal fees and being rightly punished for doing so.