David di Mambro provides a masterclass in Part 36
When the CPR came into being many regarded the creation of a claimant’s Part 36 offer as being one of the CPR’s greatest achievements. The Part was subject to wholesale amendment in April 2007 when the primary driving force was the dispensation with payments into court where:
- vast sums of money were being paid into court by, in effect, the government in relation to clinical negligence cases where the defendant’s ability to pay was not in doubt;
- the administration of the account holding the funds and the interest thereon were very expensive.
There was a view that one could not relax the rule in relation to “payment in” simply for the government or some institution ultimately backed by the government and not do so for every defendant. The opportunity was taken to “improve” the rule. This was ultimately done in comparative haste. Recent case law has produced some unexpected results which suggest that
-sophie-hughes-(r).tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7a9dca4b_1)
