header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 March 2007 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Public , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Offers to settle

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
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
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
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
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
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’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
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
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
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
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll