A recent case emphasises that a “near miss” with a Part 36 offer is not relevant to the court’s assessment of costs after a trial.
There was, for a time, a developing jurisprudence around “near miss” offers and Part 36. In Carver –v- BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/ma...
Just discovered this blog. Great stuff! Particularly welcomed your analysis on ‘near miss’ Part 36 orders. Thank you.