PIC: Latest Case Law Updates
Newmark & Company Real Estate Inc & Anor v Newmark Property Consultants Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 2397 (Ch) (18 September 2024) – an older case relatively recently added to BAIILI. Serves as a reminder that, to vary a budget we need both a significant development and to have acted promptly. Errors in the original budget or deciding to instruct more expensive representatives were found not to be significant developments, reinforcing the common-sense idea that errors in budgets are very much to be avoided.
MH v CH [2026] EWHC 238 (SCCO) (06 February 2026) – the receiving party failed to file the totality of the documents making up the paying party’s Points of Dispute (in this case four separate documents, which raises questions of its own around proportionality and PD compliance in the context of a provisional assessment). This was the result of a mistake. The Court’s case management powers under CPR 3.1(7) were utilised to set aside the PA result and, given the facts of the particular case, the matter was taken outside the PA process and listed for a detailed assessment hearing. The DA hearing would also deal with any questions around misconduct and possible contempt of Court.
Undritz v D’Amico Tankers DAC [2026] EWHC 157 (Comm) (11 February 2026) – a fairly unremarkable application for security for costs as per CPR 25.27. The Court’s attention was, however, drawn to the very limited costs estimated by the Defendant in respect of settlement negotiations. The parties were reminded of the decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 (29 November 2023)
Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13 (16 January 2026) – an object lesson in why obtaining Part 36 benefits off the back of a liability only Part 36 offer is far from straightforward where there has been no trial on liability. Essentially serves as a reminder of the fact specific nature of such cases.
Parsons v Convatec Ltd [2026] EWHC 300 (Pat) (30 January 2026) – a useful reminder of budgeting principles, including commentary on the value of comparing budgets.
Rudan Business Holding SA v Tridan Trusted Advisors AG & Ors (Re Leo Services Holding Ltd) [2025] EWHC 3565 (Ch) (17 February 2026) – an example of a decision where the parties sought to vary their budgets, with case specific decisions as to what did and did not constitute a significant development. The judgment reminds us that Persimmon Homes Ltd -v- Osbourne Clark LLP remains the leading decision on varying a budget under the current version of the rules.
Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 217 (04 March 2026) – Ex-portal case, worth well over the £25k limit so always a “Multi Track” case with the benefit of hindsight, D made a Part 36 offer with the relevant period expiring pre-allocation. Case later allocated to the Multi Track and the Claimant went back and accepted the Part 36 out of time. Ultimately the Court of Appeal found that the pre-October 2023 CPR 36.20 applied in these circumstances and therefore such cases fall within fixed costs. The Court noted that the purpose of Part 36 is to encourage the early settlement of cases in rejecting arguments based on Qader & Ors v Esure Services Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 (16 November 2016)