header-logo header-logo

07 September 2012 / Jonathan Aspinall
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Costs , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A question of timing

istock_000018793440medium_4

Can a pre-action Pt 36 offer afford protection, asks Jonathan Aspinall

In the recent case of SG (a minor by his mother and litigation friend) v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053, [2012] All ER (D) 16 (Aug), a pre-action Pt 36 offer failed to protect a defendant where the prognosis was unclear at the time the offer was made and the claimant accepted the offer two years later. The Court of Appeal gave some clues on how they approach such cases involving child and protected party claimants, and the extent to which Pt 36 offers can be used by parties in such circumstances.

Timeline

The case involved a child claimant who was injured in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The accident occurred in March 2003 when he was six years old. He sustained facial scarring and some brain damage. Medical and other reports were obtained with a view to a claim for damages, but the experts were unable to predict what the impact of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll