header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 October 2012 / Clive Thomas
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

The write path

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll