header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Practice—Offer to settle—CPR Pt 36 offer

C v D [2011] EWCA Civ 646

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Rix, Rimer and Stanley Burnton LJJ, 27 May 2011

CPR Pt 36 does not accommodate a time-limited offer. The essence of a Pt 36 offer is that it lies on the table until formally withdrawn. Only an offer which has not been withdrawn down to the commencement of trial is capable of having the scheme’s costs consequences set out in Pt 36.14.

Michael Barnes QC (instructed by SJ Berwin LLP) for the claimant. Sue Carr QC and Jonathan Hough (instructed by Rawlinson Butler LLP) for the defendants.

The claimant and defendant were involved in a contractual dispute concerning the sale of development land. During the course of the dispute, the claimant sent a letter headed “Offer to Settle under CPR Part 36”. The offer purported to be “open for 21 days”. E-mail correspondence followed between the parties and in the event the defendant purported to accept the offer outside the 21 days.

The claimant applied under CPR 3(1)(m), seeking a declaration

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
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
back-to-top-scroll