Source: http://5pumpcourt.com/pages/publications
Timestamp: 2018-03-21 14:45:23
Document Index: 248716381

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36']

publications - 5 Pump Court
Recent publications from 5 Pump Court
The New Part 36 Rules – What’s Changed?
Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been amended once more, with all offers made on or after 6 April 2015 subject to the new regime. But what do the new rules entail?
1. Time Limited Offers
CPR 36.9(4)(b) now permits an offer to be “automatically withdrawn in accordance with its terms” after the end of the relevant specified period of acceptance.
This marks a departure from the previous rule 36(3)(6) which provided that any withdrawal of an offer must be communicated after the end of the specified period of acceptance.
Offers with terms now expressed as ‘this offer shall remain open for acceptance for a period of 21 days, after which time it is automatically withdrawn’ are now valid in their entirety. No further steps need be taken to formally withdraw the offer after the end of the relevant period.
Note however that the new rule 36.9(4)(b) does not provide that all offers are automatically withdrawn after the end of the specified period. It merely provides that stating that an offer is subject to automatic withdrawal is now permitted.
2. Improved Offers
CPR 36.9(5) provides that where the offeror changes the terms of a Part 36 offer to make it more advantageous to the opposing party, such an offer will be regarded as a new offer rather than a withdrawal or amendment of the original offer.
A series of distinct improved offers remain regarded as multiple offers, any one of which may be accepted, and attract costs consequences, if not withdrawn. The former rule 36.7(2) provided that a change in terms of a specific Part 36 offer was an amendment to one offer.
The new rule 36.9(5) provides that communication of improved terms of a Part 36 offer in fact creates two offers that remain open until withdrawal or acceptance.
3. Late Acceptance
CPR 36.14(5) provides that where a Part 36 offer is accepted outside of the specified period, the court must make an order that the accepting party pays the costs from the end of the specified period up to acceptance, unless it would be unjust to do so.
The previous rules simply provided that the usual order would be made ‘unless the court ordered otherwise’, leading to some to consider that this provided for a broad discretion.
4. Split Trials
CPR 36.16 now permits a Judge hearing the trial of a preliminary issue to be told of the existence of any Part 36 offer, but not necessarily its terms.
Under the previous regime, a Judge had to decide whether to make a costs order in respect of the trial of a preliminary issue in ignorance of the existence of any Part 36 offer that had been made to compromise that issue, if that offer also contained proposals to compromise the entire claim.
The new rule permits a Judge to be told of the existence of all offers when deciding costs of trials of a preliminary issue. A Judge may be told of the terms of the offer where that offer is confined to the compromise of the preliminary issue. The rule will apply to all split trials taking place on or after 6 April 2015, even if the offer was made prior to this date.
5. Genuine Attempts to Settle
Rule 36.17 replaces the previous rule 36.14 on costs consequences following judgment. In considering whether it would be unjust to make the usual costs award, 36.17(5)(e) “whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings” is now a factor.
This new criterion appears to be designed to disincentivise very high claimant offers; an attempt to compromise the claim is unlikely to be regarded as genuine if it does not account for some litigation risk , unless the evidence is very strong in all heads of claim.
6. Failing to File Costs Budgets
It remains the case under rule 3.14 that where a costs budget is not filed in time, a litigant may be treated as having filed a budget limited to court fees only.
Rule 36.23 provides an incentive for an offeree to settle where the offeror has been made subject to an order limiting their costs to court fees only. Where the defaulting offeror has made a Part 36 offer that is accepted late, the offeror shall be entitled to recover 50% of any costs incurred after the expiry of the relevant period.
7. Appeals and Counterclaims
CPR 36.2(3) has brought clarity to the position faced by counterclaimants and claimants in additional claims. The new rule provides that counterclaimants and claimants in additional claims may receive the benefit of the more favourable costs consequences of claimant Part 36 offers, even when they are not the named claimant in the primary action.
Whilst the previous rules provided that Part 36 offers could be made in appeal proceedings, there is now more detail as to how the rule is to be applied. In particular a claimant/defendant in first instance Part 36 offers shall equate to appellant/respondent respectively. It is anticipated that where there are cross-appeals, it will be possible for a respondent to make a claimant Part 36 offer in the same way as the new rule operates for counterclaims.
aneurinmoloney@5pumpcourt.com
The Clinical Negligence Pre-Action Protocol – What’s Changed?
The pre-action protocol for the resolution of clinical disputes has changed, along with several other pre-action protocols. The changes came into force on 6 April 2015. At the present time you will not find the new protocol easily on the MOJ website (the previous protocol is most easily located), but you will find it here from page 40 onwards: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/preview/pre-action-protocol-amendments-6-...
(a) Acknowledge receipt within 14 days;
(b) Identify who will be dealing with the matter and to whom any Letter of Claim should be sent;
(c) Consider whether to commence investigations and/or obtain factual and expert evidence;
In short, the consideration of a claim at the pre-action stage affords the defendant a further opportunity to consider if an “unintended or unexpected incident” resulting in harm has occurred. If such an incident has occurred then ‘the duty of candour’ provides that all of the facts should be given to the patient about the event and that an apology should be forthcoming. This could greatly assist the claimant in pursuing their claim.