Additional payment under Part 36 — discretionary not a right
One of the amendments brought in by the Jackson reforms is the additional payment of up to £75,000 to be made to a claimant by the losing defendant if a claimant makes an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Part 36), which it then beats at trial.
Such a payment is to be made pursuant to Part 36.14(3)(d) unless the court considers it unjust to do so. Part 36.14(4) sets out some of the circumstances that should be taken into account when determining whether it is unjust to make an order. Those circumstances include the terms of the offer, at what stage in the proceedings it was made (including how long before the trial started), the information available to the parties at the time the offer was made and the conduct of the parties in giving or refusing to give information so that the offer could be evaluated.
In Feltham v Bouskell  EWHC 3086 (Ch), the defendant argued it would be unjust to award the additional sum…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the Withers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The defence of illegality – which prevents a claimant from bringing a claim that arises out of its own illegal acts – can’t be used where the company is claiming against its directors.
Principle of the free movement of capital upheld in recent decision.