header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 January 2012
Issue: 7496 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Offer to settle

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Solomon v Cromwell Group plc; Oliver v Doughty [2011] EWCA Civ 1584, [2011] All ER (D) 148 (Dec)

The mechanism provided by CPR 44.12A was intended to apply both to cases settled through the operation of CPR Pt 36 and to those settled without recourse to it. The CPR had to be read in accordance with the established principle that where an instrument contained both general and specific provisions, some of which were in conflict, the general were intended to give way to the specific. CPR 36.10 contained rules of general application whereas section II of CPR Pt 45 contained rules specifically directed to a narrow class of cases.

Reading the CPR as a whole, there was no doubt that the intention was that section II of CPR 45 should govern the cases to which it applied to the exclusion of other rules that made different provision for the general run of cases. It was wrong to state that CPR 36.10(1) did not apply in a case where a CPR Pt 36 offer was made and accepted before proceedings were issued. The terms of CPR 36

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

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll