Background
Car-Wizard, a small vehicle-repair business, brought a commercial claim against Vixen, a supplier of commercial lathes. Following a trial in October and November 2025, the court gave judgment on liability in March 2026 and assessed damages in July 2026 at £86,140.
Car-Wizard had made a £65,000 Part 36 offer in October 2024, which Vixen did not accept. After judgment on damages, the court dealt on paper with consequential issues: a revision of Car-Wizard’s costs budget, Part 36 consequences, interest, costs, and an interim payment on account.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Paul Matthews approved Car-Wizard’s revised costs budget, increasing it by £19,710 to £294,911.79. The need for additional submissions on damages was a significant development under CPR 3.15A, and the application was made promptly while the trial remained adjourned for that purpose.
The court held that Car-Wizard had beaten its Part 36 offer. Even on Vixen’s argument that certain SJ Curtis losses should be excluded, accrued interest meant the outcome exceeded £65,000. It was not unjust to apply CPR 36.17 consequences. The court awarded interest on damages at 5% above base rate from 1 June 2021 to 14 November 2024, and 10% above base rate thereafter until 3 July 2026.
Vixen was ordered to pay 90% of Car-Wizard’s costs, with costs on the indemnity basis throughout: before 14 November 2024 because Vixen’s conduct was outside the norm, and thereafter under Part 36. The court also awarded interest on costs at 5% above base rate before that date and 10% above thereafter, ordered a £214,000 payment on account, and directed payment of the Part 36 additional amount of 10% of the damages plus applicable interest.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant can obtain a post-trial budget revision where unforeseen further work arises before the trial process has truly concluded.
- A claimant’s Part 36 offer is assessed with relevant accrued interest; excluding a component of damages did not prevent Car-Wizard from beating its offer.
- Document destruction, disclosure failures and interference with expert evidence justified indemnity costs before the Part 36 consequences took effect.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the substantial financial consequences of declining a realistic Part 36 offer. Vixen’s exposure extended well beyond the £86,140 damages award through enhanced interest, indemnity costs, a substantial payment on account, and the additional Part 36 amount.
It also reinforces the court’s expectation of proper litigation conduct, especially the preservation of relevant documents and the independence of expert evidence.