header-logo header-logo

03 May 2018 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Playing by the rules

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll