Legal News

Withdrawing a Part 36 offer despite protected claimant party’s purported acceptance (Wormald (by his mother and litigation friend) v Ahmed)

Withdrawing a Part 36 offer despite protected claimant party’s purported acceptance (Wormald (by his mother and litigation friend) v Ahmed)
Published on: 23 April 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Withdrawing a Part 36 offer despite protected claimant party’s purported acceptance (Wormald (by his mother and litigation friend) v Ahmed)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case the court had to determine three questions: (i) where a protected party accepts a Part 36 offer is the other party subsequently able to withdraw that offer before approval of the settlement? (ii) when the court is asked to approve a settlement, on what grounds (if any) can a Part 36 offer be withdrawn? (iii) should the court grant permission for withdrawal of the defendant's offer or approve the settlement in the amount offered? It came to the firm conclusion that CPR 36 does not override the requirement for approval under CPR 21.10. The reason for requiring approval is to ensure that the protected party does not suffer on account of their vulnerability. It also gives the defendant absolute assurance that the claim is fully and finally settled. Indeed, the principle is so important that a compromise entered into by a defendant in good faith and without any knowledge of incapacity is invalidated (Dunhill v Burgin). Written by Professor Dominic Regan, City Law School London, and head of the Knowledge Hub, Frenkel Topping. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents