header-logo header-logo

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Practice

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Nov)

A time-limited offer was not capable of being a CPR 36 offer, as the structure of Pt 36 in general—and the provisions of CPR 36.2(2) and CPR 36.14(6) in particular—established that an offer had to be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR 36.9(2). CPR 36.9(2) provided a strong indicator of the sort of offer with which Pt 36 was concerned. The indicator was that it was an offer which was at least capable of being withdrawn and was not one which came to an end according to its own terms. Under CPR 36.14 there was a severe costs sanction placed on a defendant who did not accept a Pt 36 offer where there was judgment against the defendant which was at least as advantageous to the claimant as the proposals contained in a claimant’s Pt 36 offer.

That sanction did not apply where the Pt 36 offer had been withdrawn or where the terms had been changed so as to be less advantageous to the offeree

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