David Wright discusses the issue of Pt 36 offers
Part 36 has long been a thorn in everyone’s side. Despite the undoubted value to both parties and the justice system in general of Pt 36 offers, they have also been a consistent cause of satellite litigation, and there seems no sign of that abating.
However, in the following case it was recently highlighted that—away from the many technical elements that tend to dominate reported cases—a subsidiary purpose of the rule is to prevent injustice from the normal costs consequences that flow from failing to beat an offer.
Hacking
The Court of Appeal was ruling in Yentob v MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1292, [2015] All ER (D) 197 (Dec) the high-profile case brought by former top BBC executive Alan Yentob over phone-hacking.
In winning £85,000 in damages for misuse of his private information, Mr Yentob failed to beat the Pt 36 offer made by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) as part of the phone-hacking trial
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
