header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 May 2018 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Playing by the rules

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7791_regan

A Part 36 offer can bring a plethora of benefits, but there is no room for manoeuvre when it comes to compliance, says Dominic Regan

  • An offer is either compliant or not.There is no scope for circumventing the explicit requirements of the code.

‘Part 36 is highly prescriptive (so that even experienced lawyers may fail to make a compliant offer)’ said Burnton LJ in Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365, [2016] All ER (D) 103 (Apr) at para [1]. Disconcertingly, it now appears that this most significant of measures is not always being understood by the judiciary.

In Ali v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 840 (Ch) at paras [42]–[43], the claimant contended a joint offer made under Part 36 was invalid. Arnold J decided that it was not open to the claimants to raise this objection. They had failed to take the point upon receipt of the offer.

A similar issue arose in Seeff v

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll