header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 July 2010 / Matthew Caton , Clare Arthurs
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Satellite litigation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll