{"id":141,"date":"2014-04-16T13:57:41","date_gmt":"2014-04-16T12:57:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bandc.tlglive.co.uk\/blog\/?p=141"},"modified":"2014-11-18T11:06:31","modified_gmt":"2014-11-18T11:06:31","slug":"dilapidations-claims-part-36-offers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/dilapidations-claims-part-36-offers\/","title":{"rendered":"Dilapidations claims &#038; Part 36 offers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Dilapidations claims &amp; Part 36 offers<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p>A miss is as good as a mile (source Taylor Wessing real estate disputes team 0207 300 4199)<br \/>\n\t<em>Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Limited v (1) Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Limited (2) Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc [2013] EWHC 2227 (TCC)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Summary<\/strong><br \/>\n\tThe Court had been asked to make a costs order following its earlier decision on a terminal dilapidations claim. The decision is a very useful reminder of how Part 36 will be applied by the Courts, and how serious the consequences can be.<br \/>\n\tIn this case, the defendant tenant had made a Part 36 offer to settle, which was not accepted by the landlord. At trial, the landlord was awarded damages that were only slightly higher than the tenant&#39;s offer.<br \/>\n\tThe tenant argued that the normal rule, that the winning party can recover its costs, should not apply because its offer was such a near miss. It argued that the Court should take account of its Part 36 offer in reducing the amount of the landlord&#39;s costs.<br \/>\n\tThe Court did not accept the argument. It held that the Part 36 offer, although very near, was still not sufficient. The mere fact of a near miss was not sufficient to affect the costs order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dilapidations claims &amp; Part 36 offers:<\/p>\n<p>A miss is as good as a mile (source Taylor Wessing real estate disputes team 0207 300 4199)<br \/>\n Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Limited v (1) Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Limited (2) Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc [2013] EWHC 2227 (TCC)<\/p>\n<p>Summary<br \/>\n The Court had been asked to make a costs order following its earlier decision on a terminal dilapidations claim. The decision is&#8230;  <span class=\"pgee-read-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/dilapidations-claims-part-36-offers\/\">read the rest of &ldquo;Dilapidations claims & Part 36 offers&rdquo;<\/a><\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[19],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":224,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141\/revisions\/224"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brierleyandcoe.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}