header-logo header-logo

Offers to settle

30 March 2007 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Public , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Bevan considers the changes to PT36 in his second article on the 44th update to the CPR

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2006 (SI 2006/3435) introduce two completely re-written sections to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Parts 36 and 37 come into effect on 6 April 2007. They replace the existing rules governing offers and payments into court. An important objective behind this reform is to simplify the provisions for making Pt 36 offers. Offers to settle are governed by the new Pt 36. The new Pt 37 has nothing to do with offers to settle. It is short and limited to regulating payments into court under a court order or where a defendant wishes to raise a defence of tender.

The Advanced Guidance Notice issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs sets out the principles underlying the reform of Pts 36 and 37:

“[They] are amended to incorporate provisions for removing the requirement for defendants to make an offer to settle money claims in the form of a payment into court.

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll