header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 July 2024 / Colin Campbell
Issue: 8078 / Categories: Opinion , Costs , Privacy
printer mail-detail

An offer you can’t refuse?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Hugh Grant’s decision to settle his action for misuse of private information against NGN has shone a spotlight on the debatable fairness of CPR, Pt 36, says Colin Campbell

Mechanisms built into the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) which encourage most cases to settle before reaching trial, are rarely a talking point outside the legal profession. In April, however, the actor Hugh Grant drew attention to the ‘rules around civil litigation’ in a lengthy thread posted on the social media platform X, relating to his own case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), the owners of The Sun. By implying that these very rules effectively forced him to settle his case, much against his wishes, Grant has pushed the specific role played by CPR, Pt 36 in civil proceedings to the fore. If someone with his global fame and considerable resources says he is unable to continue his case because of a rule hitherto little known outside legal circles, people sit up and take notice.

Hugh Grant’s interpretation

It

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll