LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: TWO CONTRASTING CASES & THE GREAT DEBATE

2 Responses

1. 

   truthaholics · October 14, 2016 at 15:54:49 · →

   Reblogged this on | truthaholics.

2. 

   David Pilling · November 4, 2016 at 10:36:23 · →

   To add to that mix, I dealt with a case on the same point on 1st November (post-Whiting which was not referred to in any event) on behalf of the Claimant in Hart v Pizza Hut heard by DJ Newman in Chester. The Defendant was represented by Thomas Herbert of Ropewalk, the skeleton having been prepared by Andrew Hogan. In a short judgment he held that the Claimant had been put to work in the period post expiry of the relevant period and ultimate acceptance (49 days late in this case) which was a relevant factor. He adopted the reasoning of DJ Besford in distinguishing Fitzpatrick and added that the overriding objective was in play in that it was inequitable if it was right that a Defendant automatically gets its major Part 36 benefit on a Claimant’s late acceptance but a Claimant does not where a Defendant accepts late. That was obviously inequitable in that the parties were not on an equal footing (CPR 1.1(2)(a)). The Court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it interprets any Rule (CPR 1.2). Accordingly, the Claimant was entitled to costs on the indemnity basis for the relevant period. The Defendant was granted permission for leave to appeal.

Comments are closed.