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
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’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

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: 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
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
NLJ this week: Don’t let your LPA gather dust
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll