My Word Is My Payment In
The recent case of Cole - v - Chief Officer of the
States of Jersey Police [2008] JRC 191 held that the
courts in Jersey ought to attach weight to an offer of settlement
when deciding the issue of costs, even if such offer was not
fortified by a payment in.
The Plaintiff had sought temporary employment with Jersey Post
over the Christmas period in 2001. He was provisionally offered
employment, subject to a police check, but following that check the
offer was withdrawn. The Plaintiff sued both Jersey Post and Jersey
Police. After a strike out application, he was forced to amend his
claim.
On 13th June 2007 the Defendant wrote to the
Plaintiff offering £2,500 in full and final settlement of the
damages element of his claim. The offer was stated to be open until
close of business on 22nd June 2007 (the last working
day before the trial was due to start). The offer was not accepted.
At trial Mr. Cole abandoned his claim for all damages, save general
damages, and was ultimately awarded £750.
Costs Hearing
There followed a further hearing over costs. The Royal Court
found, in Watkins and Connell - v - Egglishaw and
others [2002] JLR 1, that Jersey has generally followed
English principles when deciding how its wide discretion to award
costs ought to be exercised and that there was every reason to
continue that practice following the impact of the Civil Procedure
Rules ("CPR").
Impact Of The CPR
The Royal Court, in Sim - v - Thomas [2001] JLR
204 stated that the position in Jersey in respect of
Calderbank offers was that of the pre-Woolf,
English position that a Calderbank offer should
not be used as a substitute for a payment into court where such a
payment in would be appropriate (Cutts - v - Head
[1984] Ch. 290). The court held that if, as
Watkins held, Jersey courts should ordinarily
follow English principles on costs, even if those principles
followed the impact of the CPR, then it would be inconsistent for
the Jersey courts not to follow English practice.
As such, the court adopted and (slightly) adapted the principles
set out by the English Court of Appeal in the case of
Trustees of Stokes Pension Fund - v - Western Power
Distribution (South West) plc [2005] EWCA Civ 854. This
case stated that "an offer should usually be treated as
having the same effect as a payment into court" so long
as the following conditions were satisfied:
The offer should be expressed in clear terms, setting out those
parts of the claim to which it applies, whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial