header-logo header-logo

05 March 2009
Issue: 7359 / Categories: Case law , Procedure & practice , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Acceptance stay 719

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed...

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

Literalistic analysis of wording, while commonplace in relation to the former Rules of the Supreme Court and County Court Rules, is not to be employed as regards the CPR (see r 1.2). The purpose of CPR 36.11 is clear and interposing a need for an application and/or an order would not serve the overriding objective.

 
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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll