header-logo header-logo

07 September 2012 / Jonathan Aspinall
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Costs , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A question of timing

istock_000018793440medium_4

Can a pre-action Pt 36 offer afford protection, asks Jonathan Aspinall

In the recent case of SG (a minor by his mother and litigation friend) v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053, [2012] All ER (D) 16 (Aug), a pre-action Pt 36 offer failed to protect a defendant where the prognosis was unclear at the time the offer was made and the claimant accepted the offer two years later. The Court of Appeal gave some clues on how they approach such cases involving child and protected party claimants, and the extent to which Pt 36 offers can be used by parties in such circumstances.

Timeline

The case involved a child claimant who was injured in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The accident occurred in March 2003 when he was six years old. He sustained facial scarring and some brain damage. Medical and other reports were obtained with a view to a claim for damages, but

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll