Part 36 and costs liabilities when there are multiple defendants
Making a Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 36 offer is one of the most useful tools in litigation. It enables a party to make a formal settlement offer knowing that if the opposition rejects it and the offeror goes on to do better at trial, the opposition will have to pay the offeror’s costs from a prescribed date — as well as interest and potentially an additional discretionary payment. Not surprisingly, a properly drafted Part 36 offer letter and the consequent risk of costs liabilities places considerable pressure on a recipient to consider the offer seriously.
But what happens when there are several defendants? If one of the defendants accepts a Part 36 offer and settles and the others do not, who pays the offeror’s costs? Does the defendant have to pay the whole of the costs in the litigation — or just the elements that relate to its own defence? And what about the disbursements such as experts’ fees and travel expenses?
This was the issue that arose recently in the case of Haynes v Department of Business Innovation and Skills…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
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 Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
The Infrastructure Act is intended to boost investment in development projects. The practical and commercial implications of the new measures are wideranging.
In Andrew Parissis v Blair Court (St John’s Wood) Management, the judge in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) provided some useful guidance.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.