header-logo header-logo

The write path

19 October 2012 / Clive Thomas
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Clive Thomas emphasises the importance of the careful drafting of Pt 36 offers

In the recent case of PHI Group Ltd v Robert West Consulting Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 588, [2012] All ER (D) 34 (Jun) the Court of Appeal provided guidance as to the requirements that a party must comply with to bring an offer letter within the ambit of Pt 36.

The appeal arose out of contribution proceedings between the appellant and respondent for their alleged negligence in the design and construction of a train servicing depot. At trial the judge apportioned responsibility as to 60% in respect of PHI and 40% in respect of RWC. There were a number of issues taken on appeal. This article will concentrate only upon whether an offer made by PHI was a Pt 36 offer.

The offer letter

The essential elements of PHI’s purported Pt 36 offer letter are set out below:

  1. Our client offers to split liability with your client on a 70:30
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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
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
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
back-to-top-scroll