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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll