Penny Jane Gilchrist v C & C Equine Services Limited

Decision date: 9 July 2019

Neutral citation: [2019] UKUT 214 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

The Upper Tribunal allowed Ms Gilchrist's appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's costs order, holding that a 21 November 2017 settlement letter was a plain "without prejudice" offer and not "without prejudice save as to costs". Because the letter was inadmissible for costs, the FTT was wrong to make Ms Gilchrist liable for all C & C's costs after she refused it; the UT remade the order so she pays half of C & C's costs (to be assessed on the standard basis) and ordered a payment on account of £16,421.59 within 28 days.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

A "without prejudice" offer is not to be treated as "without prejudice save as to costs" (and thus is not admissible on costs) unless the offer or its context clearly indicates that it was intended to have costs consequences.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The appellant's subjective explanation for refusing the offer (that she could not know whether acceptance would lead to a better outcome) was irrelevant to the admissibility question. The UT also accepted the FTT's overall assessment that C & C was the more successful party on the merits and that a half-costs result was appropriate, apart from the improper treatment of the without-prejudice letter.

Warning

Chunk is repetitive and contains duplicated passages and minor date inconsistencies. notes are somewhat repetitive and contain minor inconsistencies; they may be incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML