- Part 36 offers made net of CRU payments (Crooks v Hendricks Lovell)
- Practical implications
- How did the Part 36 issue arise in this case?
- The Part 36 issues before the Court of Appeal
- The relevant provisions of Part 36 and deductible benefits
- The CRU certificates and the wording of the defendant's Part 36 offer
- Part 36 offer 'net of CRU'—was this a valid Part 36 offer?
- When do you decide to apply rule 36.14 (CPR 36.17)?
- Had the claimant bettered the defendant's Part 36 offer?
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has construed a Part 36 offer stated to be for a sum ‘net of CRU’ as being a valid Part 36 offer made under (then) rule 36.15(3)(a) (now CPR 36.22(3)(a)). Where a defendant elects to make an offer under rule 36.15(3)(a), ie without regard to any liability for recoverable amounts, the requirement to state a gross sum under rule 36.15(6) (CPR 36.22(6)) is not relevant. The Court of Appeal also held that it had been perfectly reasonable for the recorder to adjourn his decision on costs until a review by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) had been completed so that he was able to consider costs in the knowledge as to the correct amount of deductible benefits. The only respect in which the recorder had erred had been in his assessment of whether the claimant had bettered the defendant's Part 36 offer. The recorder had looked at the matter in the wrong way by considering the effect of the offer and the effect of the judgment from the standpoint of the defendant, without regard to the value of each to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant’s appeal was allowed.
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