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
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll