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
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