header-logo header-logo

30 March 2007 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Public , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Offers to settle

Nicholas Bevan considers the changes to PT36 in his second article on the 44th update to the CPR

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2006 (SI 2006/3435) introduce two completely re-written sections to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Parts 36 and 37 come into effect on 6 April 2007. They replace the existing rules governing offers and payments into court. An important objective behind this reform is to simplify the provisions for making Pt 36 offers. Offers to settle are governed by the new Pt 36. The new Pt 37 has nothing to do with offers to settle. It is short and limited to regulating payments into court under a court order or where a defendant wishes to raise a defence of tender.

The Advanced Guidance Notice issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs sets out the principles underlying the reform of Pts 36 and 37:

“[They] are amended to incorporate provisions for removing the requirement for defendants to make an offer to settle money claims in the form of a payment into court. Defendants wishing to settle a claim with a money offer

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll