header-logo header-logo

14 July 2011 / Darren Sylvester
Issue: 7474 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Part & parcel

Darren Sylvester toys with the Part 36 conundrum

Recent court decisions have confirmed that Pt 36 of the CPR is a self-contained code governed by its own provisions. General common law principles relating to offer and acceptance do not apply (see Gibbon v Manchester City Council and LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd v Reeves [2010] EWCA Civ 726, [2011] 2 All ER 258).

Even more recently was the decision of C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 404. In this case, the question arose whether the claimant’s offer to settle—which was expressed to be open for acceptance for a specified period of time—was a Pt 36 offer.

In C v D and another the claimant brought proceedings against the defendants for damages for the defendants’ alleged breach of contract in relation to a sale of land. The claimant made an offer by letter headed “Offer to settle under CPR Pt 36”, which included reference to the offer being

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll