header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 July 2019 / Francis Kendall
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Part 36: uplifting news?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
A recent case underscores that best practice is to only make receiving party Pt 36 offers on discrete & significant issues, says Francis Kendall
  • In White and another (executors of the estate of William White, deceased) v Wincott Galliford Ltd, the costs master concluded that it would be unjust to award the claimants a 10% uplift on the assessed costs.

In May, Deputy Master Friston delivered his judgment at the Senior Courts Costs Office in White and another (executors of the estate of William White, deceased) v Wincott Galliford Ltd [2019] EWHC B6 (Costs), [2019] Lexis Citation 51. The case concerned a Pt 36 offer made by the receiving party that went solely to the hourly rates. The hourly rates contained in the offer were allowed on assessment and the judgment concerned the impact of that result.

Formidable obstacles

It is perhaps easiest to focus on the uplift sought by the receiving party, who said they were entitled to an ‘additional amount’ pursuant to r 36.17(4)(d). They sought a 10%

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll