Sweet clarity for Part 36

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Sugar Hut Group Limited and Ors v A J Insurance Service (a partnership) [2016] EWCA Civ 46, [2016] All ER (D) 51 (Feb) will have been warmly received by legal practitioners grappling with the convoluted construct of CPR Pt 36. The Court of Appeal, overturning the first instance decision, confirmed that in circumstances where the claimants were the overall successful party whose recovery had exceeded the defendants' Pt 36 offer by a comfortable margin, it was inappropriate to deprive the claimants of their costs in the case or to require them to pay the defendants' costs. The Court of Appeal further confirmed that the "near-miss" rule no longer exists, thereby quelling any concern that the first instance decision might be characterised as a retreat to the position set out in the controversial decision of Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412, [2008] All ER (D) 295 (Apr).