Part 36 – is a loophole about to be closed?
Part 36 offers in litigation are used tactically to make a settlement offer while simultaneously placing the other side on risk of not ‘beating’ that offer at trial.
Part 36 offers in litigation are used tactically to make a settlement offer while simultaneously placing the other side on risk of not ‘beating’ that offer at trial.
Pallett v MGN Ltd [2021] EWHC 76 (Ch)
In the case of Pallett v MGN Ltd [2021] EWHC 76 (Ch), the Claimant made a Part 36 offer to the Defendant with the usual 21 day ‘relevant period’ for acceptance. If the Defendant had accepted the offer within the relevant period, the Defendant would be obliged to pay the Claimant’s legal costs. But the Defendant didn’t – it accepted the offer on the 22nd day. This meant that the automatic liability to pay the Claimant’s costs did not apply and instead, the Defendant argued that it was entitled to invite the Court to consider its liability to pay the Claimant’s costs.
The delay in accepting the Claimant’s offer was a tactical move so the Defendant could raise arguments about the Claimant’s costs. This loophole allowed the Defendant to avoid the automatic costs consequences of accepting the offer which on a common-sense analysis, surely cannot have been the drafting intention.
What next for Part 36 offers?
We expect there to be further case law on this point or that Part 36 will soon be amended to close this loophole.
If you are involved in litigation then you should consider Part 36 carefully before making, or accepting, an offer.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Training
Mock inquest training course
Published Article
Johnson et al v FirstRand Bank: Judgment sends warning across financial services intermediation
Legal Update
Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd: Opening the floodgates to mass litigation?
Legal Update
Know your dispute resolution clauses: Key take-aways from Kajima v Children’s Ark and Lancashire Schools v Lendlease
Opinion
Law Commission initial consultation published on reforming Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Legal Update
EasyGroup proceedings defeated by jurisdictional challenge
Legal Update
New amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules and their impact
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Modification of contracts existing before the go-live date of the Procurement Act 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Decisions of the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel
Opinion
Publication of The Renters’ Rights Bill: Major changes to the private rented sector are on their way
Legal Update
Motor finance complaints on hold: Why now is the time for strategic action
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Contract management and performance
Legal Update
Extended s20 voluntary care isn’t always a breach of human rights
Legal Update
Alternative dispute resolution: The future of ADR in the UK legal system
Opinion
Settling future claims: Insights from Clifford v IBM 2024
Opinion - Maternity services
New online system streamlines maternity services at The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
Case update: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities v Grey GR Limited Partnership
Legal Update
Commercial contracts: Top tips before signing on the dotted line
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Duty of Candour review: Submission to the Department of Health and Social Care
Published Article
English Commercial Court rules against Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses
Legal Update
Changes to the fixed recoverable costs regime
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Press Release
Browne Jacobson Ireland LLP rank across Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property and Technology in the Legal 500 EMEA 2024
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
