ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER WHILST AN APPLICATION TO REALLOCATE THE CASE FROM BAND 2 TO BAND 1 IS PENDING: CAN THE COURT STILL PROCEED TO REALLOCATE?
I am grateful to my colleague Steven Turner for sending me a copy of this interesting decision which relates to Part 36, fixed costs and applications to “re-band” a case. The case may be unusual in that an application for…
CAN A DEFENDANT MAKE A PART 36 OFFER THAT ATTEMPTS TO BIND THE CLAIMANT IN RELATION TO MATTERS NOT PLEADED?
Here we have an interesting, and important, point about CPR Part 36. Firstly could a defendant establish that a claimant had not beaten a Part 36 offer when that offer dealt with matters that were not part of the pleaded…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION ABOUT LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER LEADING TO CLAIMANT BEING ENTITLED TO COSTS TO BE ASSESSD
It is a busy day for Court of Appeal decisions on procedure. Here we have an important judgment on Part 36. What are the costs consequences if a defendant makes a Part 36 offer when the case is subject to…
A PART 36 OFFER CANNOT BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PLEADINGS: NOR CAN THE OFFEROR ARGUE THAT IT WAS NOT, IN FACT, A PART 36 OFFER AT ALL
Here we have a case where the defendant argued that a second action against it by a claimant was an abuse of process because an earlier action had settled by way of the claimant accepting a Part 36 offer. The…
WEBINAR ON PART 36: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”: WATCH IT WHEN AND WHERE YOU WANT…
I have had some enquiries about whether the webinar given today on Recent Developments in Part 36 is available this webinar is available “on demand. It is now available – the details are available here. (The CLB Member discount…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PART 36 FIXED COSTS AND LATE ACCEPTANCE HEARD – DECISION PENDING (PLUS A FINAL PLUG FOR THE WEBINAR ON PART 36 ON THE 26th FEBRUARY 2026)
The Court of Appeal has heard an appeal against the decision in Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 884 (KB). This is an interesting decision on Part 36. I understand that judgment is pending. This was one of many…
![PART 36 ISSUES: CAN A JUDGE CONSIDER INTEREST UNDER PART 36 WHEN INTEREST HAD BEEN AN ISSUE DETERMINED IN THE ACTION? [SPOILER - YES THEY CAN]](https://i0.wp.com/www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Par36Interest.png?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
PART 36 ISSUES: CAN A JUDGE CONSIDER INTEREST UNDER PART 36 WHEN INTEREST HAD BEEN AN ISSUE DETERMINED IN THE ACTION? [SPOILER – YES THEY CAN]
The judgment here considers an interesting point in relation to Part 36. The judge had, in the substantive judgment, considered issues relating to the interest to be paid by the defendant. The defendant had failed to beat a Part 36…
PART 36: RECENT CASES, KEY ISSUES AND KEY PROBLEMS CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2026
A detailed working knowledge of Part 36 in practice is no longer optional for litigators. Recent decisions show the courts applying the rules with increasing rigour, exposing parties to serious and often unexpected costs consequences. This webinar cuts through…
PART 36: LIABILITY ONLY OFFERS AND THE COURT OF APPEAL: WE DON’T HAVE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY WE DO HAVE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY
Those with long memories will recall the confusion and uncertainty that the Court of Appeal caused in Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412 when the concept of a “near miss” was introduced in relation to Part 36. A…
PART 36: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: DETAILS OF THE WEBINAR ON THE 26th FEBRUARY 2025
A working — indeed, a detailed — knowledge of how Part 36 operates in practice is essential for all litigators. Although it is famously described as a “self-contained code”, it is a code whose application continues to develop, often in…
PART 36 OFFERS ON COSTS: JUDGE ALLOWS DEFENDANT’S APPEAL: THE OFFER HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN, THE COSTS OF PREPARING THE BILL WERE NOT RECOVERABLE
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of this decision which highlights an important issue in relation to Part 36 and the assessment of costs. At first instance a Deputy District Judge found that the…
PART 36 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS: WHAT PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2.00 pm (THREE TRACTORS, TWO FIELDS AND FAILING TO BEAT AN OFFER BY A “WHISKER”)
The past 12 months have seen some important cases about Part 36. Every civil litigator needs to keep up to date with these developments. This webinar looks at the cases and considers the practical implications for litigators. DATE AND TIME…
SHOULD A LOSING PARTY FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER? A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A HIGH HURDLE WITH A “FORMIDABLE BURDEN”
A litigant who fails to beat a Part 36 offer can normally expect to face the consequences set out in the rules. There is an exception if that litigant can satisfy the court that it is “unjust” for those consequences…
PART 36: DOES A JUDICIAL READING DAY COUNT IN THE CALCULATION OF “21 DAYS” ? WHAT A DIFFERENCE A (READING) DAY MAKES…
We have seen numerous cases on this blog where matters have been left the “last minute” and the rules as to the calculation of time become important. Here we have an interesting example in relation to Part 36. An offer…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: DO NOT MENTION A PART 36 OFFER TO THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE THE TRIAL(OR DURING IT FOR THAT MATTER…)
The first time I wrote on this topic many practitioners expressed surprise that I had written something so very “basic”. Some readers were incredulous. However, as we see below, others shared their experiences. This rule is not known, or not…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER 3: SO WHY DID THE CLAIMANT LOSE? PLUS – THE STING IN THE TAIL FOR DEFENDANTS…
Earlier posts have shown that the claimant was successful on two of the key issues in relation to the appeal. However litigation can be cruel. A litigant can win on many issues but still lose the case. So it is…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER 2: WAS AN OFFER ON LIABILITY EFFECTIVE IN THIS CONTEXT?
We continue with the detailed examination of the Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 this morning. This aspect of the case is particularly important because, again, although the claimant lost the appeal he won on this particular issue. That…
PART 36 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY: DIGGING DEEPER (1): WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “JUDGMENT” AND AN “ORDER” ?
There are some interesting issues raised in the Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 today that every practitioner should be aware of. The case has been helpfully summarised by my colleague Elliot Kay here. I wanted to break down…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PART 36 THIS MORNING: AN OFFER OF 90% ON LIABILITY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE PART 36 CONSEQUENCES WHEN A CLAIM IS APPROVED ON DAMAGES (BUT DID NOT IN THIS CASE).
I am grateful to my colleague Elliot Kay for sending me a note of a Court of Appeal decision on Part 36 given this morning. The issue relates to Part 36 offers on liability where the matter is compromised and…
COST BITES 318: PART 36 ISSUES: DOES AN AGREEMENT ON DAMAGES AFTER TRIAL MEAN THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES DO NOT APPLY?
Do the normal Part 36 consequences apply when the parties agree damages and lodge a consent order after a trial on liability? That is the issue considered by the High Court here. (Part 36 consequences apply – the writing is…
INTEREST ON PART 36 OFFERS: HOW SHOULD IT BE CALCULATED? GIVING THE CLAIMANT INTEREST ON COSTS BEFORE THEY WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IS NOT AN ABSURDITY
This is an interesting Part 36 issue in a case where the claimant had beaten its own Part 36 offer. The court made an order for additional interest from the date of expiry of the offer. Does the defendant have…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (3): ARE THE CPR PROVISIONS RELATING TO VULNERABILITY RELEVANT? WHOSE JOB IS IT TO CONSIDER THEM IN THIS CONTEXT?
We are looking again at the case in which the claimant applied for permission to withdraw their Part 36 offer. The claimant had capacity, however at the hearing it was argued that he came within the definition of “vulnerable” litigant…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (2): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
We continue with the consideration of the recent case in which a claimant applied for permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer. The judge also considered the relevant rules and case law in detail. (You need the court’s permission to…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? IS A “CHANGE OF MIND” A “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES”: THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
There are few cases which involve a claimant seeking to withdraw their own Part 36 offer we have a decision today here. The claimant made an offer and attempted to withdraw is shortly afterwards. The defendant accepted the offer within…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?
We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order. Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (2): SHOULD THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER APPLY? INTERESTING ISSUES OR ISSUES ON INTEREST?
We continue looking at a High Court decision with some interesting issues in relation to the making of Part 36 offers and the consequences for a party if the offer is not beaten. Here we look at the court’s considerations…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (1): WAS THE OFFER A VALID OFFER? TWO FIELDS, THREE TRACTORS AND £20,000 CAUSED A FURROW IN THE DEFENDANT’S BROWS
Here we are looking at an argument as to whether a Part 36 offer, slightly unusual in form, was a valid Part 36 offer. Later posts will examine many of the other issues relating to costs that were considered in…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE
Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid. The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…
PART 36: WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED AS TO INCREASED INTEREST WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN OFFER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
When a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer they are entitled to additional interest on damages from the “relevant period” (the date of expiry of the offer. Here we have a case where the factors that effect the rate…
COST BITES 274: IN CONSIDERING WHETHER TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS HOW RELEVANT IS A DEFENDANT’S WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER? (THE CLAIMANT THAT TURNED DOWN $50 MILLION DOLLARS – AND THEN LOST AT TRIAL…
Here we look at a short judgment on costs. The judge considered whether an indemnity costs should be made and the date from which the indemnity costs order should take effect. There were several factors specific to this case, however…
COST BITES 266: THE DEFENDANT WHO OBTAINED AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS IN HER FAVOUR AND STILL ENDED UP CONSIDERABLY OUT OF POCKET: PART 36 OFFERS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS: PLUS – “COSTS CAPPING” CONSIDERED – AND REFUSED
We are looking at a case where a defendant successfully defended an application to commit, was awarded indemnity costs and yet ended up considerably out of pocket. It shows the importance of a well judged Part 36 offer by the…
PART 36, REFUSAL TO MEDIATE AND SHOULD A PARTY BE SUBJECT TO THE PART 36 PENALTIES WHEN AN OFFER WAS MADE TO THREE DEFENDANTS?
What should the court do in a case where a Part 36 offer is made in relation to a number of defendants but the claimant only succeeds against one of them? Can a failure to accept an offer of mediation…
COSTS AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES CONSIDERED WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: CIRCUIT COMMERCIAL COURT DECISION: HOW IS THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY CALCULATED WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS NOT IN STERLING?
We are looking at a case where the claimant beat its own Part 36 offer and the court had to consider the consequences. There were some unusual aspects in that the judgment was not given in sterling. However the judge…
FOUR PART 36 WEBINARS – ALL AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: WHAT A TREAT – POTENTIALLY A WHOLE NIGHT’S VIEWING…
The webinar on Part 36 that I broadcast earlier this week is now available on YouTube and can be found here. Links to previous webinars on Part 36 can be found below. MATTERS COVERED IN THE 2025 WEBINAR This…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 103: THE STANDARD FORM FOR PART 36 OFFERS
Yesterday I gave a webinar about Part 36, this will shortly be available on YouTube. The webinar reviews cases over the past 12 months. One of the points being considered was the arguments in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments…
CLAIMANT FAILS TO BEAT DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER “BY A WHISKER”: IS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?
Here we are considering a High Court decision about the consequences of a Part 36 offer. The claimant failed to beat the offer “by a whisker” because of the way in which interest was calculated. The judge considered the claimant’s…
PART 36 IN THE COURTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2025: KINGS CHAMBERS
There is always a batch of interesting cases on Part 36, for the past four years I have reviewed this in a webinar arranged by my chambers. This year is no different and the webinar takes place on the 3rd…
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER: WEBINAR 21st MAY 2025
A defendant is entitled to make a Part 36 offer whenever it wants. The making of an early offer can cause major problems for claimants and their lawyers. An understanding of the rules, the relevant cases and the steps that…
PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFEREES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS
In Thomas Barry & Anor v Denis Barry [2025] EWHC 819 (KB) Mr Justice Dexter Dias rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants should not receive an additional amount in circumstances where they had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The…
PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT
Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: “THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS”
The judgment in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Price [2020] EWHC 3276 (Ch) was given in October 2020, but has only recently arrived on BAILII. It concerns late service of a Part 36 offer. This is an issue rarely considered…
IT WAS NOT “UNJUST” FOR THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY: THE EXISTENCE OF A MAIN CLAIM (WHICH DID NOT SUCCEED) COULD NOT ASSIST THE DEFENDANT
In South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 3544 (Ch) Mr Justice Richards considered the arguments as whether it was “unjust” for the normal provisions of a Part 36 offer to apply. He…
CLAIMANT IS SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL, BUT DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER MEANS THAT CLAIMANT PAYS THE COSTS: A REMINDER THAT PART 36 REMAINS IMPORTANT – EVEN AT THE APPEAL STAGE
I am grateful to my colleague Steven Turner for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision on costs in Majid -v- HSF Logistics Polksa AP.ZO., a copy of which is available here CA Decision on Costs (and…
CLAIMANT BEATS HIS OWN “NON MONETARY” OFFER: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW: INDEMNITY COSTS BECAUSE OF CONDUCT
In Grierson v Grierson [2024] EWHC 3048 (Ch) Joanne Wicks KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) found that a claimant had made a Part 36 offer which the defendant had failed to beat. The offer was…
LIMITATION, DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS – THE KEY CASES OF 2024: WEBINAR 27th NOVEMBER 2024: HELPING YOU TO AVOID PROBLEMS IN 2O25 (AND BEYOND…)
This webinar looks at the key cases relating to limitation, default and sanctions that have occurred in 2024. The aim is to look at problem areas to help litigators avoid problems in the future. Booking details are available here. THE…
COST BUDGETS, VARIATIONS AND “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS”: JUDGE REFUSES TO REVISE THE BUDGET AFTER TRIAL
In Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application that the budget be revised after the trial. The judge held that the matters relied…
PART 36: THE CONSEQUENCES APPLY TO A CLAIMANT’S OFFER EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CLAIM FOR A MONETARY AWARD
In Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that Part 36 applies even when the claim was not, directly, for a monetary award. There was…
A PART 36 OFFER MADE PRE-TRIAL WAS NOT OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE WHILST QUANTUM WAS BEING ASSESSED: WHEN IS A SPLIT TRIAL NOT A SPLIT TRIAL?
In Wells v Hornshaw & Ors [2024] EWHC 2019 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson rejected a petitioner’s argument that a Part 36 offer remained open for acceptance. There had been a trial after the Part 36 offer had been made. …
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER ON LIABILITY NOT EFFECTIVE WHEN CAUSATION WAS STILL AT LARGE: NOT AN EFFECTIVE TRY
In Elbanna v Clark (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1471 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting found that a claimant’s Part 36 offer to accept 75% of liability was too ambiguous to be effective when issues of causation were also to be…
You must be logged in to post a comment.