header-logo header-logo

15 August 2019 / Joel Douglas
Issue: 7853 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Part 36: a welcome return to simplicity?

Post-JLE, parties wishing to escape Part 36 consequences should once again find this an exceptionally daunting task, says Joel Douglas

  • While no rule should be without exceptions, the ‘formidable obstacle’ of the injustice test has been re-affirmed.

The Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules are rarely straight forward and without controversy. Many provisions of the CPR require complex Practice Directions, numerous judicial decisions and various amendments through the years in order that practitioners can be relatively confident that they are applying the provisions correctly. However, the provisions of Part 36, as far as Civil Procedure Rules go, appear relatively straightforward.

For claimants, providing the formalities of CPR 36.5 are met the consequences are clear.

Equal or better your offer at assessment pursuant to CPR 36.17 (1)(b) and, unless the court considers it unjust to make such an award, become entitled to:

  • interest on the whole or part of any sum of money at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate (36.17 (4)(a));
  • costs on the indemnity
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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll