Acceptance stay 719

05 March 2009

Issue: 7359 / Categories: Case law , Procedure & practice , Judicial line , In Court

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed...

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

Literalistic analysis of wording, while commonplace in relation to the former Rules of the Supreme Court and County Court Rules, is not to be employed as regards the CPR (see r 1.2). The purpose of CPR 36.11 is clear and interposing a need for an application and/or an order would not serve the overriding objective.

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

Acceptance stay 719

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed...

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Big tech for small firms

Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs

NLJ this week: Presumption of capacity reaffirmed

The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination

NLJ this week: Justice delayed, justice denied

Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly

NLJ this week: The road ahead for employment rights

Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: SLAPPed shut?

From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics

Error message

Acceptance stay 719

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Keoghs—four appointments

Brabners—Ben Lamb