One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.4K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 67 : YOU CANNOT RELY ON THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED SILENCE AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTEMPT AN UNPLEADED CASE THROUGH THE BACK DOOR
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?
- THERE MAY BE A LOT OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING A PARTY: HOWEVER THE CLAIM WAS STILL PRESENTED IN AN “UNFOCUSED” MANNER: A “MOVEABLE FEAST” IS NOT A WISE WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
Top Posts
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?
- THERE MAY BE A LOT OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING A PARTY: HOWEVER THE CLAIM WAS STILL PRESENTED IN AN "UNFOCUSED" MANNER: A "MOVEABLE FEAST" IS NOT A WISE WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 67 : YOU CANNOT RELY ON THE DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED SILENCE AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTEMPT AN UNPLEADED CASE THROUGH THE BACK DOOR
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP - BUT HINDER: "I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT'S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME"
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
The new 36.13(5) does intend ‘claimant’ and not ‘offeree’. If the claimant makes an offer which the defendant accepts out of time, it is the claimant who gets costs until the date of expiry, not the defendant/offeree.
It is a shame that the imbalance in this rule was not addressed such that claimants get indemnity costs from the date of expiry in the scenario above. There is no real detriment to a defendant in accepting an offer late.