F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd and others v Barthelemy and another [2012] EWCA Civ 843, [2012] All ER (D) 145 (Jun)
The costs regime of CPR 36.14 represented a departure from otherwise established costs practice. It had imposed a deliberately swingeing costs sanction on a claimant who had failed at trial to beat a defendant’s CPR Pt 36 offer. There was no reason or justification for indirectly extending the requirements of CPR Pt 36 beyond its expressed ambit. Intended CPR Pt 36 offers had to be very carefully drafted so as to comply with the requirements of CPR Pt 36. CPR Pt 36 was to be regarded as self-contained, and it was not open to the parties or the courts to look for asserted glitches or asserted omissions so as to bring a case indirectly within the reach of CPR Pt 36 when it could not directly be so brought in.
