header-logo header-logo

14 July 2011 / Darren Sylvester
Issue: 7474 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Part & parcel

Darren Sylvester toys with the Part 36 conundrum

Recent court decisions have confirmed that Pt 36 of the CPR is a self-contained code governed by its own provisions. General common law principles relating to offer and acceptance do not apply (see Gibbon v Manchester City Council and LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd v Reeves [2010] EWCA Civ 726, [2011] 2 All ER 258).

Even more recently was the decision of C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 404. In this case, the question arose whether the claimant’s offer to settle—which was expressed to be open for acceptance for a specified period of time—was a Pt 36 offer.

In C v D and another the claimant brought proceedings against the defendants for damages for the defendants’ alleged breach of contract in relation to a sale of land. The claimant made an offer by letter headed “Offer to settle under CPR Pt 36”, which included reference to the offer being open for 21 days from the date of the letter

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