This Practice Note explains why, when and how the offeror can withdraw a Part 36 offer. It also notes when permission is required, to whom the application should be made and the effect of withdrawing a Part 36 offer. Why withdraw a Part 36 offer? Where a Part 36 offer is withdrawn, the consequences following judgment under either CPR 36.17(3) (defendant’s entitlement) or CPR 36.17(4) (claimant’s entitlement) will not apply (CPR 36.17(7)(a)). This means that the offeror will not have the costs benefits, which they otherwise would have done, from making a Part 36 offer that is successful at trial. However, there may good reason(s) for withdrawing a Part 36 offer, eg new evidence may have come to light meaning that the Part 36 offer no longer corresponds with the actual value of the claim and/or is no longer beneficial in respect of its terms. In such circumstances, the offeror may look to withdraw its Part 36 offer to make sure that the offeree cannot accept it. If there is an obvious and apparent

Note: this Precedent is a claimant Part 36 offer letter; it does not cover CPR 36 provisions that relate specifically to fixed costs cases. For information on Part 36 offers in fixed costs cases, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position prior to 1 October 2023) and Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023). [insert name and address of defendant or defendant's legal representative] [insert date] Without prejudice—save as to costs Dear [insert organisation name] [Pre-action] Part 36 offer [Claimant v Defendant—Case number] We refer to the above [potential] matter in which we act for [insert name of your client]. [Our client is confident that it is entitled [insert brief nature/details of dispute] but because [insert explanation as appropriate] we have been instructed to put forward an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘the Offer’). For the avoidance of doubt, this Offer is made pursuant to Part 36. OR Our client wishes to seek to resolve this matter amicably and we have been instructed to put forward an offer under Part

Note: This Precedent is a defendant Part 36 offer letter; it does not cover CPR 36 provisions that relate specifically to fixed costs cases. For information on Part 36 offers in fixed costs cases, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position prior to 1 October 2023) and Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023). [insert name and address of claimant or claimant’s legal representative] [insert date] Without prejudice—save as to costs Dear [insert organisation name] [Pre-action] Part 36 offer [Claimant v Defendant—Case number] We refer to the above [potential ]matter in which we act for [insert name of your client]. [Our client is confident that your client’s claim is unsustainable but because [insert explanation as appropriate] we have been instructed to put forward an offer under Part 36 of the CPR (‘the Offer’). For the avoidance of doubt, this Offer is made pursuant to Part 36. OR We are instructed by our client to put forward a Part 36 offer (‘the Offer’) to settle their claim. For the avoidance of doubt, this

Personal Injury analysis: Benjamin Williams QC at 4 New Square Chambers advises claimants to make Part 36 offers at the earliest possible stage as it may enable them to escape fixed costs altogether.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This appeal concerns the court’s approach to costs orders arising from Part 36 liability-only offers where other effective Part 36 offers are in play. This was a food poisoning claim where each party had made at least one Part 36 offer, none of which had been accepted, including the claimant’s 90:10 liability-only offer. At the trial’s conclusion, the claimant was awarded less in damages than the Part 36 settlement sum offered by the defendant but the award was made on a 100% liability basis. The court determined that only the defendant should get the benefit of the Part 36 costs consequences and that those costs could be set off against the claimant’s costs. The claimant appealed the costs order and the High Court found that in the circumstances of this case, the claimant’s offer had not fallen into the scheme of Part 36 (and that the judge had erred in law in respect of the costs set-off but not otherwise). Written by Rachel Segal, barrister at St John’s Chambers.

This Practice Note considers illustrative decisions on the operation and costs consequences of Part 36 offers in cases decided from 1 January 2024 onwards. The decisions are grouped by issue/theme to help practitioners identify relevant cases, key issues considered and the court’s decision. Note, while these decisions provide an insight as to the court’s approach, they are, to a large extent, fact specific. They should therefore be considered bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case. Acceptance Case details Key issue(s) considered Decision Biddick v Biddick [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch)27 October 2025 The claimant brought proprietary estoppel and partnership claims concerning family-owned agricultural land. He accepted the defendants’ Part 36 offer, which provided for the transfer of land and farming assets in exchange for £500,000 and his withdrawal from the family partnership and company. The proceedings were automatically stayed, but the parties could not agree the documents required to implement the settlement. The defendants applied to enforce the offer under CPR 36.14(8).The court considered whether the settlement was enforceable, whether the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out illustrative decisions in respect of Part 36. It provides the details of relevant cases up to 2024. The decisions are grouped by issue to assist practitioners in considering specific themes. These cases illustrate the application of the Part 36 regime in practice. Whether particular Part 36 costs consequences apply will depend on the circumstances of the case, the terms, timing and effect of the relevant offer and the applicable version of the Civil Procedure Rules. As a result, these decisions are, to a large extent, fact specific. For more recent illustrative decisions, see Practice Note: Part 36—illustrative decisions (from 2024 onwards). Acceptance Case details Key issue considered Decision / outcome Laverty v Greensill Bank AG [2023] EWHC 2429 (Ch)19 September 2023 Whether Part 36 could apply to insolvency directions proceedings involving adverse claims, whether the offer was conditional on the court first determining that Part 36 applied, and whether disagreement about post-relevant-period interest meant

This Precedent and drafting note is for use when writing to a client about the possibility of their making a Part 36 offer to settle their claim. It is drafted on the basis of a straightforward dispute but may be amended accordingly to fit the specifics of the case, whether for a claimant client or a defendant client. Note, that this Precedent and drafting note does not cover CPR 36 provisions that relate specifically to fixed costs cases. For information on Part 36 offers in fixed costs cases, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position prior to 1 October 2023) and Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023). Private & confidential [insert name and address of client] [insert date] Dear [insert name of client] [insert case heading/description of the case if pre-action] Settlement offers under Part 36 We have been considering the possibility of settling this matter and the different ways to achieve this. [You will recall that ] [one OR One] of those methods was a Part 36 offer. The purpose

Article 2 of the 2008 Order defines ‘the GDPO’ as ‘the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995’ (the 1995 Order). The 1995 Order was revoked in England by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, SI 2010/2184, which was then revoked by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, SI 2015/595. Our Q&A on: What is the effect/rule for interpreting legislation that specifically refers to enactments that have been repealed and replaced? Should the replacement

This Checklist summarises the old provisions in Part 45 on fixed costs and provides a roadmap to relevant content. The old (transitional) provisions in Part 45 apply to fixed costs cases (largely personal injury cases) which came within the fixed recoverable costs regime prior to 1 October 2023. Reference to ‘rule’ and ‘part’ in this Practice Note are in respect of the old provisions. The old rule 45 can be accessed here: For guidance on other CPR provisions which limit the costs which can be incurred or recovered, see Practice Notes: • Costs capping orders—these limit the level of future costs a party can recover by a subsequent costs order (CPR 3.19(1)) • Protective costs orders—these limit the level of costs a losing party will

[ In the COUNTY COURT AT [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [A.B. (a child) by C.D. as litigation friend]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant ________________________________________________ Particulars of claim ________________________________________________ 1 The Claimant is a child who was born on [insert date of birth] and who is

The moratorium under IA 1986, Pt A1 The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) made a number of significant changes to insolvency law, including introducing a new standalone moratorium. The moratorium is an insolvency process whereby directors of insolvent companies and designated members of insolvent limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and those that are likely to become insolvent, can obtain a 20 business day moratorium period. This process, which is found at the Insolvency Act 1986, s A1 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 1A.1, is designed to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action. An insolvency practitioner acts as the ‘monitor’. The members remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis (known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the LLP being the ‘debtor’) subject to certain constraints. The intention behind the moratorium process is to provide a streamlined procedure that keeps administrative burdens to a minimum, makes the process