header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 June 2021 / Kris Kilsby
Issue: 7937 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

Pt 36: an offer you can’t refuse?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
51271
Kris Kilsby outlines why a Pt 36 offer is the best method of protection during costs assessment proceedings
  • Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Pt 36 offers: background; parties’ submissions; decision reached.

The case of Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] Lexis Citation 51 has provided further judicial comment that a paying party should not expect to obtain a different order for costs at the conclusion of a provisional assessment hearing simply by relying on CPR 47.20(3)(b) when the paying party hasn’t beaten any previous offers made.

Background

The matter originated as the claimant, an Albanian national, had entered the country by lorry in December 2014 and was then detained by Thames Valley Police. Prior to her removal a claim was brought for unlawful detention. A settlement was reached in October 2019 where the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) agreed to pay damages of £12,500 plus costs on the standard basis, to be assessed

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll