header-logo header-logo

Practice—Offer to settle—CPR Pt 36 offer

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

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 The essence of a Pt 36 offer is that it lies on the table until formally withdrawn. Only an offer which has not been withdrawn down to the commencement of trial is capable of having the scheme’s costs consequences set out in Pt 36.14.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

Birketts—Michael Conway

Birketts—Michael Conway

IP partner joins team in Bristol to lead branding and trade marks practice

Blake Morgan—Daniel Church

Blake Morgan—Daniel Church

Succession and tax team welcomes partner inLondon

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec

Firm appoints senior associate to lead Manchester city centre team

NEWS
Ministers’ proposals to raise funds by seizing interest on lawyers’ client account schemes could ‘cause firms to close’, solicitors have warned
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
Pension sharing orders (PSOs) have quietly reached their 25th anniversary, yet remain stubbornly underused. Writing in NLJ this week, Joanna Newton of Stowe Family Law argues that this neglect risks long-term financial harm, particularly for women
A school ski trip, a confiscated phone and an unauthorised hotel-room entry culminated in a pupil’s permanent exclusion. In this week's issue of NLJ, Nicholas Dobson charts how the Court of Appeal upheld the decision despite acknowledged procedural flaws
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
back-to-top-scroll