Solomon v Cromwell Group plc; Oliver v Doughty [2011] EWCA Civ 1584, [2011] All ER (D) 148 (Dec)
The mechanism provided by CPR 44.12A was intended to apply both to cases settled through the operation of CPR Pt 36 and to those settled without recourse to it. The CPR had to be read in accordance with the established principle that where an instrument contained both general and specific provisions, some of which were in conflict, the general were intended to give way to the specific. CPR 36.10 contained rules of general application whereas section II of CPR Pt 45 contained rules specifically directed to a narrow class of cases.
Reading the CPR as a whole, there was no doubt that the intention was that section II of CPR 45 should govern the cases to which it applied to the exclusion of other rules that made different provision for the general run of cases. It was wrong to state that CPR 36.10(1) did not apply in a case where a CPR Pt 36 offer was made and accepted before proceedings were issued. The terms of CPR 36 as a whole made it quite clear that steps taken
