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 The essence of a Pt 36 offer is that it lies on the table until formally withdrawn. Only an offer which has not been withdrawn down to the commencement of trial is capable of having the scheme’s costs consequences set out in Pt 36.14.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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll