header-logo header-logo

Time for a spring clean?

20 November 2014 / Giles Hutt , Alex Sciannaca
Issue: 7631 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail
huttsciannaca

Part 36 is in need of revision to make it more transparent for parties & their lawyers say Alex Sciannaca & Giles Hutt

The general view is that Pt 36, governing formal offers to settle, is one of the more successful parts of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), but is in urgent need of a spring clean. Since it was last revised in April 2007, a number of specific problems have arisen that need to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and some of the key provisions of Pt 36 are anyway needlessly technical and should be made a lot simpler. Excessive technicality leads to mistakes being made, and so many supposed “Pt 36 offers” are in reality no such thing, and may have only a marginal influence on any costs order made by the court—the opposite of the offeror’s expectations. At the same time, lack of clarity as to how Pt 36 works makes it less effective than it should be as a system of sticks and carrots

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll