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CPR 36.2(2) and CPR 36.14(6) in particular—established that an offer had to be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR 36.9(2).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 The indicator was that it was an offer which was at least capable of being withdrawn and was not one which came to an end according to its own terms.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That sanction did not apply where the Pt 36 offer had been withdrawn or where the terms had been changed so as to be less advantageous to the offeree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

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

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
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll