header-logo header-logo

29 July 2010 / Matthew Caton , Clare Arthurs
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Satellite litigation

Has Part 36 spawned its own cottage industry? Matthew Caton & Clare Arthurs report

In the joined appeal of Gibbon v Manchester City Council, the Court of Appeal addressed Part 36 issues arising from two county court judgments (Gibbon v Manchester City Council; LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd v Reeves and another [2010] EWCA Civ 726, [2010] All ER (D) 218 (Jun)). The Court of Appeal panel was authoritative, comprising LJ Moore-Bick, LJ Carnwath, and Sir Anthony May (president of the Queen’s Bench Division). From 1 January 2007, LJ Moore-Bick was a member of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee that drafted the current version of Part 36, which came into force on 6 April 2007 with the 44th CPR Update.

Part 36 is a self-contained code

A brief overview of the background in Gibbon demonstrates how intransigence over a relatively nominal amount of money can lead to an expensive and unnecessary costs order for three levels of proceedings, not to mention immortality in Part 36 case law. In Gibbon, Mrs Gibbon

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll