header-logo header-logo

Part 36: a welcome return to simplicity?

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

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll