- Court of Appeal—what is the meaning of 'claim or part of [a claim] or an issue' in Part 36 (Hertel v Saunders)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What the lower courts decide?
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This appeal considered whether a Part 36 offer was in fact valid where it did not relate to a part of the claim at the time of the offer. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the provision in CPR 36.2 (3), which requires an offer to be made in respect of claim, should be construed to include a new claim which had been intimated in writing but for which no permission to add to the pleaded case had been granted. The Court of Appeal upholding the decision of Morgan J held that the Part 36 offer was invalid. This decision and the practical implications are considered by Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School, London, and special advisor to the Association of Costs Lawyers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial