header-logo header-logo

25 January 2013 / David di Mambro
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Room for improvement

istock_000011386657small_2

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

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll