header-logo header-logo

Change management

14 January 2016 / Emily Hillson
Issue: 7682 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , CPR , Jackson , Part 36
printer mail-detail
nlj_7682_hilson

Need to change your Pt 36 offer? Emily Hillson provides guidance

Before even thinking of changing a Pt 36 offer I suggest you wrap a cold towel around your head. I hope that the cold towel and this article will help you understand the effects of changing a Pt 36 after the relevant period, the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to change an offer, and how to respond to an offer that has been changed.

Changing a Pt 36 offer after the relevant period

The effects of changing a Pt 36 offer differ depending on whether the offer is changed to make the terms more or less advantageous to the offeree. The differences can be illustrated by the following two scenarios. The backdrop to each is that a litigant has previously made a Pt 36 offer which relates to the whole of the claim, but developments in the case mean that the offer is now

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

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll