header-logo header-logo

A question of timing

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

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