Vanessa Van Breda looks at four judgments from last year which highlight potential pitfalls within the Pt 36 regime
To trigger Pt 36 consequences an offer’s form and content must be in accordance with CPR 36.2. This may seem straight forward, but the recent case of C v D & Another [2010] All ER 176 (Nov) indicates just how technical and prescriptive the Pt 36 regime is.
In C v D the claimant’s “Part 36 offer” was stated to “be open for 21 days from the date of this letter (the ‘relevant period’)”. The defendant sought to accept it over a year later; less than one month before trial. The claimant sought a declaration that it could no longer be accepted; the defendant should have accepted it when it was stated to be open.
Granting the declaration, Warren J (Chancery Division) concluded that the wording, highlighted above, provided a time limit for acceptance of the offer which ended some time before the defendant’s attempted acceptance. He also concluded that such a time limited
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
