UK: Zagora Management Limited v Zurich Insurance Plc And Others - Costs

Last Updated: 2 May 2019
Article by Alexandra Lyons and Henry Cunnington

Judge provides useful insight into admissible, non-Part 36 offers in its recent costs decision in Zagora Management Limited v Zurich Insurance Plc and Others [2019] EWHC 257 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful insight into the weight given to admissible, non-Part 36 offers to settle when calculating costs. In particular, the judgment highlights conduct that should be avoided by all parties, whether they are giving or receiving offers. The decision also provides much-needed guidance on the relevance of "near miss" offers in this context.

Details of the underlying case can be found here, but for the purposes of this costs decision that main judgment can be summarised briefly:

  1. All of the Claimants ("the ZBC Claimants") who sued the Second Defendant ("ZBC") lost their claims against it, although the ZBC Claimants succeeded in establishing that ZBC had been guilty of deceit.
  2. Similarly, the first Claimant freeholder ("Zagora") lost its claims against the First Defendant and Third Defendant (collectively "ZIP").
  3. The remaining individual leaseholder Claimants ("the Leaseholder Claimants") succeeded in securing a substantial judgment amounting to over £3.6m plus interest of just under £700k (totalling over £4.3m).

The costs in relation to (1) above are considered first, then (2) and (3) are considered together.

ZBC Claimants v ZBC

In attempting to calculate costs for this part of the dispute, Davies HHJ noted a handful of opposing factors. On the one hand, the ZBC Claimants had proved in the main judgment that ZBC was guilty of deceit. They therefore argued that, while they had lost overall, this deceit should justify a departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event. On the other hand, not only had ZBC been successful but it had also made an admissible offer to settle the claim, inclusive of costs, for £250,000. ZBC argued that the ZBC Claimants' insistence on continuing with their ultimately unsuccessful case was unreasonable in the face of this offer.

Ordinarily, when calculating costs the Court will take into account an offer to settle where the offeree has not bettered that offer in the final judgment. However, the unsuccessful ZBC Claimants argued that this should not be the case here, for two reasons. First, the offer constituted only a "trifling amount"; and second, it did not contain any admission or apology for ZBC's deceit.

Despite these contrasting arguments, Davies HHJ came to a number of clear conclusions. He was confident that the offer, while it would not have provided a "substantial" net recovery for the ZBC Claimants, would nevertheless have provided them with "at least a significant proportion of the costs incurred as against ZBC up to that point". He considered that it was "a generous dose of sugar, in the form of a significant contribution towards costs, to sweeten the pill of being compelled to abandon the claim".

He also disagreed with the ZBC Claimants' submission regarding the absence of an admission or apology. They had submitted that there was a public interest in knowing about the fraudulent issuing of public documents (in this case, Building Regulations final certificates). They therefore argued that the offer was inadequate in a manner broader than the purely financial. Davies HHJ found that where an offer does not contain an admission, a party cannot justify its refusal of that offer on the grounds that "it was entitled to proceed to trial to obtain a public exposure of the fraud". Davies HHJ also noted that the ZBC Claimants had originally pleaded their case in negligence (with an amendment made later to add the fraud claim), and that the ZBC Claimants had never sought an admission or apology from ZBC during the proceedings. As a result, there was no public interest and the ZBC Claimants were not entitled to now rely on the lack of an admission as the basis for rejecting the offer.

In light of these findings – and his rejection of both points raised by the ZBC Claimants – Davies HHJ ruled that the ZBC Claimants must pay all of ZBC's costs from the date on which the offer expired.

Zagora and Leaseholder Claimants v ZIP

In this second part of the dispute, which the Leaseholder Claimants ultimately won, ZIP had made an offer to settle. This offer, which the Claimants rejected, was that ZIP would pay £3.8 million plus their legal costs as incurred against ZIP.

Zagora and the Leaseholder Claimants made a number of criticisms of the offer, revolving around the conditions ZBC had attached to it, with which importantly, Davies HHJ agreed:

  1. First, ZIP had requested that that the Claimants indemnify them against any future claim by the two remaining leaseholders who had not joined in the litigation (and to provide acceptable security for that indemnity);
  2. Second, ZBC required that the bank should release any claims it might have had, as the mortgagee of the residential flats in question, against ZIP;
  3. Third, ZIP required that the Claimants should not bring any future proceedings against ZIP in relation to the subject matter of the claims; and
  4. Finally (and, in Davies HHJ's view, most importantly) the offer stipulated that the Claimants would only be entitled to be paid their costs "if any of the Claimants can demonstrate to ZIP's reasonable satisfaction that they are liable to pay costs".

Davies HHJ decided that the Claimants were wholly entitled to reject these conditions as unreasonable. While it may have been commercially sensible for ZBC to seek them, the Claimants were not obliged to accept them (especially since there was no reason for the Claimants to shoulder risks which should otherwise rest with ZBC). It was therefore unreasonable for ZBC to continue to insist on their inclusion in the offer.

Davies HHJ stated that "The only sensible conclusion to draw is either that ZIP was simply not prepared to conclude an agreement without these stipulations or it considered that it could stand on this offer and justify it as reasonable without the need for a fall-back position." He therefore concluded that the Claimants were not unreasonable in refusing to accept the offer.

"Near miss" offers

Finally, Davies HHJ turned to the issue of "near miss" offers. That is, the situation where an offer is bettered at trial but where that offer was "still sufficiently close to the eventual outcome at trial that the claimant ought to be penalised for rejecting it outright without any attempt to negotiate".

The relevant offer in this case was ZIP's offer of £3.8 million plus legal costs. Although Zagora had lost, the remaining Claimants had been successful against ZIP and had obtained a judgment greater than the offer. An important factor here is that ZIP successfully argued that the Leaseholder Claimants' claim should be limited by a maximum liability ("ML") cap. Were it not for this ML cap, ZIP liability would have been in excess of £9.7M plus VAT, as opposed to the eventual total of £4.3 million.

First, Davies HHJ relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Coward v Phaestos [2014] EWCA Civ 1256 and made it clear that the near miss principle does apply to admissible, non-Part 36 offers.

Next, he criticised the Claimants for not having adequately considered the offer, noting that they ought to have appreciated that their claims may have been limited by the ML cap (as indeed they ultimately were). He even suggested that they should have set out that position in open correspondence. On the other hand, however, was the fact that the Claimants had also pleaded a claim for interest. ZIP should therefore have appreciated that interest could be added to any capped judgment, thereby increasing that judgment far beyond ZIP's offer. As a result, Davies HHJ was not content that the offer constituted a "near miss". He also highlighted the numerous unreasonable terms requested by ZIP, as described further above.

Davies HHJ went on to make the following useful comments, of which all offerors should take note:

  1. Once ZIP's offer had been ignored by the Claimants, ZIP ought to have considered whether to make a more straightforward offer without any unreasonable conditions;
  2. There was no good reason why, in this case, ZIP should not have made a Part 36 offer in the sum of £3.6 million; and
  3. It is critical that any offer intended to give costs protection can be defended, at the costs stage, as one which ought reasonably to have been accepted at the time it was made.

By insisting on its offer with unreasonable conditions and subsequently attempting to rely on that offer as constituting reasonable conduct, ZIP was "seeking to ride two horses". It ultimately suffered the consequences.

When calculating the resulting impact on costs, the starting point was that the Leaseholder Claimants had been successful so should receive their costs. However, Davies HHJ stated that there ought to be a percentage reduction to reflect the significant impact of the ML cap; the fact that Zagora had lost its claim; and the Leaseholder Claimants' lack of realism when considering ZIP's offer. However, this reduction was "relatively modest", because the Leaseholder Claimants had obtained a judgment in excess of the offer; ZIP was responsible for the unreasonableness of its offer; and because the costs involved in the Leaseholder Claimants' defence of the ML cap issue were relatively small.

As a result, Davies HHJ ordered that the costs recovered by the Claimants be reduced by 12.5%. On top of the 7.5% reduction made in light of Zagora's failed claim (not discussed here), the Claimants' lost out on 20% of their costs.


There are a number of key takeaways from this decision, which should act as words of warning for those making or receiving admissible, non-Part 36 settlement offers. It is clear that the Courts will not look kindly upon offerees who simply ignore offers, or who attempt to justify any refusal solely on the basis that an offer did not contain an admission of guilt. Instead, such a party should engage and take note where the offering party's position does have some merits. This can be done either by open or (more realistically) by "without prejudice save as to costs" correspondence. Failure to contact or acknowledge the other party may lead to adverse consequences in a near miss situation.

By contrast, it goes without saying that no offeror should insist on onerous, unreasonable conditions. Where it is clear that the conditions on an offer will not be accepted, the Courts expect a simpler offer to be made instead – perhaps on a Part 36 basis.

Ultimately, this decision shows that neither party should attempt to take undue advantage of the settlement offer process. Anyone who attempts to ride two horses does so at their peril.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions