header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 November 2009 / Matt Mccahearty , Jonathan Pratt
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

How many bites of the cherry?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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The current Pt 36 rules, which came into effect on 6 April 2007, provide that Pt 36 offers remain open until expressly withdrawn but what happens when a Pt 36 offer is rejected?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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll