This Practice Note explains Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 36 offers made in relation to claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). It considers the requirements and timing of a Part 36 offer, withdrawing or amending an offer and the costs consequences of Part 36. What is a Part 36 offer? A Part 36 offer is an offer to settle a claim, counterclaim or other additional claim (or any part or issue thereof) or an appeal or cross-appeal from a decision made at trial which, if made in accordance with the provisions of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, carries certain costs consequences if and when accepted. Conversely, it carries certain costs consequences if not accepted at all, depending on the ultimate outcome of the case. While either party may rely on an offer to settle made without prejudice save as to costs in support of a costs argument at the end of a case, such non-compliant offers will not have the

An order may be made for the payment of an occupation rent where one party leaves a property owned beneficially by both parties and the other remains in occupation enjoying the use of the property. Prior to the enactment of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), such issues were determined by the equitable principles of 'equitable accounting' or 'equitable compensation'. In Stack v Dowden, Baroness Hale stated that those equitable principles were replaced by TOLATA 1996, ss 12 and 13. However there are references to those principles and pre-TOLATA 1996 case law in subsequent case law and in Stack v Dowden itself Baroness Hale stated that 'The criteria laid down in [TOLATA 1996] should be applied, rather than the cases decided under the old law, although the results may often be the same'. It is not necessary for there to have been an ‘ouster’ (forceful exclusion) of the non-occupying party from the property for the court to determine that an occupation rent should be payable. The court’s powers The court has

Pre-action protocol There is no specific pre-action protocol relating to claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). Hence, the parties should have regard to Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. It is contained within the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 and sets out the conduct expected of parties prior to the issue of proceedings. Except in the most urgent cases or where the application results from an agreement, before commencing court proceedings (and regardless of whether the claim is ultimately brought under CPR Part 7 or CPR Part 8), the court will normally expect parties to exchange sufficient information in order to: • understand each other's position • make decisions about how to proceed • try to settle the issues without proceedings • consider a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) • support the efficient management of any proceedings, and • reduce the costs of resolving the dispute Proportionality The importance of proportionality is highlighted, in particular that the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols are

This Practice Note provides an introduction to some of the most important procedural elements of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 in relation to claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), specifically costs budgeting, disclosure and inspection, witness statements and expert evidence. The provisions are the same, regardless of whether the claim is brought under CPR Part 7 or CPR Part 8, see Practice Note: TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8. See also Practice Notes: TOLATA 1996—pre-action matters, TOLATA 1996—when to issue in the County Court and when to issue in the High Court and TOLATA 1996—Part 36 offers. For practical guidance on the court’s approach to TOLATA 1996 claims, see Practice Note: Case law relating to TOLATA 1996 claims and Precedent: Specimen final orders under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Costs budgeting Costs budgeting is part of the duty of the court to manage costs. Its purpose is that the court should manage both the steps to be

STOP PRESS: From 1 October 2026, the Chancery Division of the High Court is renamed the Business and Property Division. Existing Business and Property Courts sitting within the King's Bench Division are brought into the Business and Property Division and there are also consequential changes to related terminology and procedure—see News Analysis: Changes to the Chancery Division and formation of the Business and Property Division—what family practitioners need to know. This document is being updated to reflect these changes. This Practice Note explains the distinction between the County Court and the High Court in relation to claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) and also contains a brief outline of the two procedures. County Court or High Court? A TOLATA 1996 claim may be commenced in either the County Court or the High Court (but not currently in the Family Court). They have concurrent jurisdiction. The decision of where to issue is both technical and tactical,

STOP PRESS: From 1 October 2026, the Chancery Division of the High Court is renamed the Business and Property Division. Existing Business and Property Courts sitting within the King's Bench Division are brought into the Business and Property Division and there are also consequential changes to related terminology and procedure—see News Analysis: Changes to the Chancery Division and formation of the Business and Property Division—what family practitioners need to know. This document is being updated to reflect these changes. This Practice Note explains the distinction between Parts 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 in relation to claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) and also contains an outline of the two procedures and considers transfers away from the Part 8 procedure and costs. When should proceedings be issued under Part 7 and when should proceedings be issued under Part 8? A TOLATA 1996 claim may be issued under either CPR Part 7 or Part 8. A TOLATA

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has published the response to its September 2024 consultation on proposed amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2699 (HESC Rules 2008), regarding whether Special Educational Needs appeals could be determined on the papers without requiring the consent of both parties. Following stakeholder feedback, the TPC intends to amend Rule 23 of the HESC Rules 2008 for appeals against decisions to refuse to conduct needs assessments, by removing the application of Rule 23(1)(a). This change will grant tribunal judges full judicial discretion to decide whether such appeals should be determined on the papers or at a hearing.

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has opened a consultation on possible amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 in light of new rights of appeal created by the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023). The OSA 2023 enables both service providers directly affected by Ofcom decisions and, in certain cases, persons with a ‘sufficient interest’ to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The proposals focus on introducing a three-month time limit for applications for permission to appeal under section 168 by persons with a sufficient interest, and on revising the default position on costs in OSA 2023 cases. The consultation closes on 21 May 2026.

Employment news analysis: The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has launched a consultation on possible changes to the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024) relating to: (1) dispute resolution appointments, (2) grounds for the claim or response, (3) the consequences of failing to reply to an employer’s contract claim, (4) the tribunal being able to direct a party to supply a draft of a proposed case management order, and (5) the publication of reconsideration judgments following repeated applications. Responses to the consultation should be submitted by no later than 19 May 2025.

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has launched a consultation on potential changes to the procedure rules for all Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales, and Scotland). The changes concern the extent to which each tribunal is obliged to provide written reasons for decisions disposing of proceedings and other case management measures. The consultation closes on 22 October 2024.

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has launched a consultation on proposed amendments to costs and expenses rules in the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals. The consultation seeks views on measures intended to improve clarity, consistency and fairness in tribunal costs procedures, including proposals to introduce explicit powers for the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and the Employment Tribunals to order payments on account of costs before assessment, and to establish clearer and more consistent rules allowing the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, except for the Social Entitlement Chamber and the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber, to award interest on costs. The TPC also proposes clarifying tribunals’ powers to make Pro Bono Costs Orders under section 194A of the Legal Services Act 2007, while maintaining the current position in chambers without general costs powers. The Committee stated that the proposals are intended to simplify and align tribunal procedures, remove uncertainty about existing powers, and support the efficient administration of justice while preserving judicial discretion over when costs-related powers should be exercised. The consultation closes on 29 July 2026.

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has published its response to its consultation on amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 in respect of judicial review applications, confirming that it will proceed with all three proposed changes. The amendments will introduce express provision for an applicant to reply to an acknowledgment of service, with the seven-day period remaining a default timetable capable of being varied. The TPC rejected a proposal to allow respondents to reply in turn, stating that this could cause delay, increase costs and create unnecessary divergence from Administrative Court practice. It will also amend the rules to remove the requirement for decisions finally disposing of immigration judicial review proceedings to be given at a hearing, while leaving issues around remote distribution and litigants in person to judicial discretion. Additionally, rule 28A will be amended to require an applicant to provide a sealed copy of the application to a respondent or interested party.