header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 August 2010 / Anna Pertoldi , Maura Mcintosh
Issue: 7430 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Open 24 hours

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Anna Pertoldi & Maura McIntosh explain why it pays to keep a close eye on Part 36 offers

Earlier this summer the Court of Appeal handed down a significant judgment relating to offers to settle made under Pt 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the joined appeals of Gibbon v Manchester City Council and LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Limited v Reeves [2010] EWCA Civ 726, [2010] All ER (D) 218 (Jun). The court held that, contrary to normal contractual principles, a Pt 36 offer may remain open for acceptance even if it has previously been rejected or the offeror has made a subsequent offer in different terms.

As a result of the decision, parties need to review any Pt 36 offers previously made which they no longer wish to keep on the table. If there is any uncertainty, offers should be expressly withdrawn or varied. A failure to do so may mean that, in the eyes of the court, all offers remain on the table.

The judgment has also sought to limit the effect of Carver v BAA [2008] EWCA Civ

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
Sponsored by
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll