header-logo header-logo

Avoid at all costs

15 July 2019 / Paul Bracewell
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
Practitioners should steer clear of making Pt 36 offers with costs conditions attached, warns Paul Bracewell
  • Pt 36 offers which include terms as to costs are inconsistent with the Pt 36 rule, HHJ Matthews has held in Knight and another v Knight and others.

 A Pt 36 offer (pre-issue) which imposes a condition as to costs is not a valid offer, HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) held in Knight and another v Knight and others [2019] EWHC 1545 (Ch).

The case is also notable for rejecting the claimants’ argument that the defendants’ failure to accept a reasonable offer, made outside of Pt 36, should lead to the claimants being awarded indemnity costs.

The facts of the case

The case had been to trial in March 2019 on the issue of the beneficial ownership of the proceeds of sale of property. The claimants are the administrators of an estate and the defendants are the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased. The defendants lost and accepted that they would

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll