Admissions payments—are they inclusive or exclusive of Part 36 offers? (Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of the case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether payments made on account of liability (admissions payments) should have the effect of reducing an earlier Part 36 offer. Arden and Flaux LJJ held (agreeing with Briggs LJ in Macleish v Littlestone [2016] EWCA Civ 127) that where such a payment is made, the law presumes that it is also on account of any earlier Part 36 offer unless at the time the payment is made, or promptly afterwards, the paying party makes it expressly clear that the payment is not intended to reduce the amount of the Part 36 offer. The judgment is applicable to cases where the claimant beats a Part 36 offer only if admissions payments are taken into account to reduce the Part 36 offer and makes clear that the paying party must state clearly what is intended.