header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Part 36: why interest matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
19 March 2020 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7879 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Masood Ahmed serves up a timely reminder that only offers inclusive of interest are valid under Part 36
  • The importance of ensuring that an offer incorporates the formal requirements of Part 36 in order for it to be valid and for the necessary cost consequences to apply.

Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a self-contained set of rules designed to encourage both the claimant and defendant to settle the claim outside of court. Part 36 offers will attract cost consequences for the offeree if he rejects the offer but subsequently fails to do better than that offer. It is therefore extremely important that any party seeking to take advantage of the relevant cost consequences should ensure that its offer strictly complies with the formal requirements under Part 36. One of the mandatory requirements under Part 36 is that the offer must be inclusive of interest. However, the interest requirement was recently challenged in King v City of London [2019] EWC Civ 2266.

Relevant rules

Part

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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll