header-logo header-logo

25 March 2016 / Ben Savery , James Deacon
Issue: 7692 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

A spot test on strategy

001_nlj_7692_savery

James Deacon & Ben Savery set out the lessons to be learnt from recent Pt 36 case law

A raft of recent cases has underlined the importance of making Pt 36 offers that are strategic, timely and correctly formulated.

Question 1

Can you make an offer to settle for a percentage of liability that could never be awarded in practice and is there a minimum reduction you should make?

Answer: The High Court has clarified that you can make such an offer and a modest reduction may suffice.

In Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd v Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 167 (TCC), [2016] All ER (D) 90 (Feb), the defendant agreed to design and build a grandstand at Epsom. The roof failed and was later found to be defective. The club issued proceedings for the costs of repair and business interruption. It later made a Pt 36 offer to settle liability at 95% of the damages “to be assessed”. Willmott Dixon did not respond. It was directed that there would be a

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