Jack Ridgway shares his reflections on the significance of Hugh Grant’s (reluctant) acceptance of a Pt 36 offer
- The importance of Pt 36.
- The consequences of failing to beat Pt 36.
- The role of Pt 36 where money is not the driving factor in the litigation.
The world of legal costs and celebrity rarely interact, yet in the past few years we have had legal costs enter the public consciousness on two occasions: the infamous ‘Wagatha Christie’ saga (‘Welcome to the jungle (Pt 2)’, 169 NLJ 7868, p15), and more recently (in April) Hugh Grant (‘The insider’, NLJ, 17 May 2024, p7). While Coleen Rooney had her day in court, Hugh Grant (pictured) has cast the spotlight on legal costs for a very different reason—Pt 36.
While some sympathy can be felt for an individual who feels wronged and has not ‘had their day’ in court, it should be remembered that Hugh Grant has received damages without going to trial in several libel claims, going all the way back to 1996. It should also be remembered
