header-logo header-logo

05 May 2021 / Helen Armstrong , William Rowell
Issue: 7931 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Navigating Pt 36: challenges & pitfalls

48176
Part 36 settlement offers: Helen Armstrong & William Rowell outline how to avoid the pitfalls
  • Part 36 regime: an influential settlement weapon.
  • Recent judgments: outlining the highly complex area for parties and their advisers.

The Pt 36 regime is arguably one of the most influential weapons in the Civil Procedure Rules’ (CPR) arsenal for encouraging settlement. It provides a statutory code of prescribed costs, damages and interest enhancements that essentially penalise parties who fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

The rules relating to Pt 36 offers are, however, very complex. There are various formal requirements for making an offer. Parties may inadvertently (and unknowingly) fail to make a compliant Pt 36 offer and cannot benefit from the enhanced costs consequences they had envisaged. Even where an offer is compliant, if it would be ‘unjust’ to award the prescribed benefits, the court can disapply them. The whole regime becomes a procedural minefield.

A series of recent judgments illustrates how difficult this area can be for

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll