header-logo header-logo

17 June 2011 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Costs , CPR
printer mail-detail

The second coming

Dominic Regan salutes the welcome return of Part 36

“This offer is open for 21 days,” was the seemingly innocuous phrase which nearly brought down Pt 36, caused many lawyers sleepless nights and necessitated hearings in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal. All is now resolved with the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in C v D [2011] EWCA Civ 646, [2011] All ER (D) 287 (May) a decision which is spot on.

C v D

The claimant in a substantial property dispute received an offer plastered with references to Pt 36. It should be appreciated at the outset that saying it is a Pt 36 offer does not necessarily mean that it is in law effective. For example, a valid offer must specify a relevant period of no less than 21 days’ duration. The significance of the relevant period is that if the offer is accepted within that time then costs will follow. It does not

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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll