header-logo header-logo

12 August 2010 / Anna Pertoldi , Maura Mcintosh
Issue: 7430 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Open 24 hours

Anna Pertoldi & Maura McIntosh explain why it pays to keep a close eye on Part 36 offers

Earlier this summer the Court of Appeal handed down a significant judgment relating to offers to settle made under Pt 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the joined appeals of Gibbon v Manchester City Council and LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Limited v Reeves [2010] EWCA Civ 726, [2010] All ER (D) 218 (Jun). The court held that, contrary to normal contractual principles, a Pt 36 offer may remain open for acceptance even if it has previously been rejected or the offeror has made a subsequent offer in different terms.

As a result of the decision, parties need to review any Pt 36 offers previously made which they no longer wish to keep on the table. If there is any uncertainty, offers should be expressly withdrawn or varied. A failure to do so may mean that, in the eyes of the court, all offers remain on the table.

The judgment has also sought to

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll