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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll