header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2020 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7879 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Part 36: why interest matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Masood Ahmed serves up a timely reminder that only offers inclusive of interest are valid under Part 36
  • The importance of ensuring that an offer incorporates the formal requirements of Part 36 in order for it to be valid and for the necessary cost consequences to apply.

Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a self-contained set of rules designed to encourage both the claimant and defendant to settle the claim outside of court. Part 36 offers will attract cost consequences for the offeree if he rejects the offer but subsequently fails to do better than that offer. It is therefore extremely important that any party seeking to take advantage of the relevant cost consequences should ensure that its offer strictly complies with the formal requirements under Part 36. One of the mandatory requirements under Part 36 is that the offer must be inclusive of interest. However, the interest requirement was recently challenged in King v City of London [2019] EWC Civ 2266.

Relevant rules

Part 36 makes clear that offers must include interest. The

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