A “PART 36 OFFER” THAT ATTEMPTS TO VARY USUAL COSTS CONSEQUENCES IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER AT ALL: HIGH COURT DECISION
In James v James & Ors [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) determined an interesting issue in relation to an offer made in the course of proceedings. A “Part 36” offer which attempted to…
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY
An interesting point arose in the Court of Appeal decision today in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190. When a party seeks permission to appeal from the trial judge – can the other party make submissions in…
LIMITATION: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS TO RUN ON DAY CAUSE OF ACTION BEGINS
In Matthew & Ors v Sedman & Ors [2017] EWHC 3527 (Ch) His Honour Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) had to consider an interesting issue in relation to limitation. “… where it is absolutely clear…
You must be logged in to post a comment.