Dockley
Trouble is your solicitor may know the local district judge and his/her idiosyncrasies.
I have seen quite a fair bit of academic opinion to the general effect that sticking to unreasonable offers could result in a costs award ; for example :
• In considering what order, if any, to make for costs the court has a (non-exhaustive) checklist of matters to consider:
1) Failure by a party to comply with the FPR, any Court order and any relevant PD, e.g. Where
form E has not been filed by the time of the First Appointment in breach of FPR, r. 2.61B;
2
2) Any open offer to settle made by a party, e.g. Where a respondent has made a generous offer at a stage where the applicant has sufficient disclosure to evaluate that offer which is declined without adequate explanation, the court may consider the sanction of casts against the applicant;
3) Whether it is reasonable to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;
4) The manner in which a party had pursued or responded to the application or a particular allegation or issue;
5) Any other aspect of conduct in relation to the proceedings which the court considers relevant (catch all provision);
6) The financial effects on the parties of any costs order.
• It should be noted that litigation conduct includes conduct before proceedings, including premature issuing without giving reasonable opportunity to settle and attempts to defeat claims.
• Conduct does not have to be obvious e.g. non disclosure and obfuscation; it can extend to whether or not it was reasonable for a party to have incurred high, disproportionate or unnecessary costs on a particular allegation or issue. Failure to negotiate, success or failure on a particular issue, might enable one side to argue that money has been wasted on costs that should be reflected in the award.
Mike 100468