header-logo header-logo

26 November 2009 / Matt Mccahearty , Jonathan Pratt
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

How many bites of the cherry?

Matt McCahearty & Jonathan Pratt recommend keeping Pt 36 offers under review

The current Pt 36 rules, which came into effect on 6 April 2007, provide that Pt 36 offers remain open until expressly withdrawn but what happens when a Pt 36 offer is rejected?

Contract law clearly provides that when an offer is rejected, it lapses. What is less well established, however, is whether the same rule applies to the Pt 36 procedure. This issue was discussed in the recent case of Sampla and Others v (1) Rushmore Borough Council (2) Mr Timothy Crowley [2008] EWHC 2616 (TCC).

Rushmore Borough Council (RBC) and Mr Crowley were co-defendants to a claim, brought by Mr Sampla and others (the claimants). Mr Crowley settled the dispute with the claimants and sought to recover a contribution from RBC.

On 12 August 2008, Mr Crowley made a Pt 36 offer, in which he offered to accept from RBC a contribution of 20% towards both the settlement sum and the claimants’ costs. On 14

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll