header-logo header-logo

Acceptance stay 719

05 March 2009
Issue: 7359 / Categories: Case law , Procedure & practice , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed...

CPR 36.11 provides that if a Pt 36 offer is accepted, the claim will be stayed. It does not say that the claim will “stand stayed” or that it will be automatically stayed without further order of the court. Does this mean that an order for stay is required?

Literalistic analysis of wording, while commonplace in relation to the former Rules of the Supreme Court and County Court Rules, is not to be employed as regards the CPR (see r 1.2). The purpose of CPR 36.11 is clear and interposing a need for an application and/or an order would not serve the overriding objective.

 
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll