PART 36: THE UNCERTAIN PROGNOSIS AND THE CLAIMANT’S CONUNDRUM: FIVE POINTS TO THINK ABOUT

February 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

The earlier post on the Court of Appeal decision in Briggs -v- CEF Holdings Ltd [2017] EWCA 2363 (Civ) gives rise to a conundrum that claimants (and sometimes defendants) have to address. How do you advise a client when a Part 36 offer is made when there is an uncertain medical prognosis? There is ...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Avoiding negligence claims, Damages, Part 36

4 Responses

Dominic · February 6, 2018 at 08:07:03 · →

Typo in point 1 should be “still” not “steal” 🙂
1. gexall · February 6, 2018 at 11:08:03 · →
  
  Thanks Dominic. I also had to correct a grocer’s apostrophe in the introduction.
John Ibbotson · February 6, 2018 at 08:35:08 · →

If the Defendant insurer is signed up to The Serious Injury Guide (and most of the big ones are), then it states;

“No Part 36/Calderbank offers unless or until the parties have tried to agree an issue through dialogue and negotiation but cannot do so”.

This might help in the valuable and complex claims that the Guide is for.
Richard Money-Kyrle · February 6, 2018 at 11:08:28 · →

consider is this a case where proceedings might appropriately be stayed (bearing in mind all the potential issues arising from that) pending evolution of the claimant’s condition and so reduce on going legal costs.