header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 March 2015 / David di Mambro
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Part 36 remastered

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7643_di-mambro

The revised Part 36: an offer they cannot defuse? By David di Mambro

CPR Part 36 has been substantially revised and replaced with effect from 6 April 2015 (Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/3299)).

It has been necessary to re-number the revised Part 36. Consequently, when considering any case law, one must take care to identify whether the case is referring to a rule number in the old Part 36 or a rule number in the revised Part 36. All rule numbers in this article will refer to the revised rule unless otherwise stated.

A Destinations Table is set out at the end of this article.

Transitionals

The revised Part 36 will apply to offers made on or after 6 April 2015. As appears from the transitional provisions in the SI, some of the new rules in Part 36 will apply to the old Part 36 regime where the offer:

  • was made before 6 April 2015, but
  • a trial of any part of the claim or of any issue
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
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll