TMC LEGAL | THOMAS V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2025] EWHC 3274 (KB)

Описание: A consent order requiring payment of an agreed damages sum constitutes a "judgment" for the purposes of CPR 36.17, triggering enhanced costs consequences where the settlement exceeds the claimant's Part 36 offers.

A consent order recording a damages settlement constitutes "judgment" for the purposes of CPR 36.17, engaging the usual costs consequences available to a claimant who has beaten their own Part 36 offer. HHJ Freedman applies the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Vanden Recycling, focusing on substance over form.

🔑 Key Points:
Consent orders can constitute "judgment" for CPR 36.17 purposes
Absence of the word "judgment" in the order is not determinative
Substance and effect of the order matters, not precise wording
Usual Part 36 costs consequences engaged where settlement exceeds claimant's offers
Interest on costs set at 7%

📋 Case Summary:
Case: Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3274 (KB)
Judge: HHJ Freedman (sitting as additional High Court judge)
Claim: Unlawful detention
Settlement: £16,000 by consent order dated 23 July 2025
Claimant's Part 36 offers: Four offers, all below £16,000 (first offer £15,000)

⚖️ Why This Matters:
This decision indicates that agreeing damages by consent order will not, without more, prevent CPR 36.17 being engaged where the order is final and substantive in effect. The court will look at the substance and effect of a consent order, not its precise wording.

🎯 What The Court Decided:
The consent order requiring payment of £16,000 was substantively equivalent to a judgment
The order was final and enforceable in the same manner as a trial judgment
CPR 36.17 costs consequences were engaged
The usual Part 36 costs consequences ran from 8 November 2021 (21 days after first Part 36 offer)
Interest on costs set at 7%
Claimant to bear costs of application dated 9 May 2025

📚 Topics Covered:
CPR 36.17 costs consequences following judgment
Consent orders and the meaning of "judgment"
Part 36 offers in unlawful detention claims
Vanden Recycling Ltd v Kras Recycling BV [2017] EWCA Civ 354

💼 Useful For:
Costs Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Litigation Solicitors | Civil Litigators | Immigration Lawyers | Public Law Practitioners

🔗 Links:
📖 Read the full blog post: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk/consent-or...
⚖️ Read the judgment on BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...

📞 Contact TMC Legal:
Website: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 01628 526 236

🔔 SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments

Related Cases:
Vanden Recycling Ltd v Kras Recycling BV [2017] EWCA Civ 354

Related Topics:
#CostsLaw #CPR3617 #Part36 #ConsentOrder #CostsConsequences #UnlawfulDetention #CivilLitigation

⚠️ Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific costs issues, please contact a qualified costs lawyer.

© 2025 TMC Legal Limited

#CostsLaw #CPR3617 #Part36Offer #ConsentOrder #Judgment #CostsConsequences #HighCourt #CivilProcedure #LegalCosts #CostsLawyer #CostsDraftsman #Litigation #TMCLegal #VandenRecycling #SettlementCosts #LegalUpdate #UKLaw