header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2024 / Jack Ridgway
Issue: 8082 / Categories: Features , Profession , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Part 36: Does justice have a price?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
184265
Jack Ridgway shares his reflections on the significance of Hugh Grant’s (reluctant) acceptance of a Pt 36 offer
  • The importance of Pt 36.
  • The consequences of failing to beat Pt 36.
  • The role of Pt 36 where money is not the driving factor in the litigation.

The world of legal costs and celebrity rarely interact, yet in the past few years we have had legal costs enter the public consciousness on two occasions: the infamous ‘Wagatha Christie’ saga (‘Welcome to the jungle (Pt 2)’, 169 NLJ 7868, p15), and more recently (in April) Hugh Grant (‘The insider’, NLJ, 17 May 2024, p7). While Coleen Rooney had her day in court, Hugh Grant (pictured) has cast the spotlight on legal costs for a very different reason—Pt 36.

While some sympathy can be felt for an individual who feels wronged and has not ‘had their day’ in court, it should be remembered that Hugh Grant has received damages without going to trial in several libel claims, going

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll