Source: https://www.boodlehatfield.com/the-firm/articles/webb-v-liverpool-women-s-nhs-foundation-trust-when-is-a-winner-not-a-winner/
Timestamp: 2018-09-19 07:39:27
Document Index: 415619124

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 44', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 44']

Any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under Part 36 apply.
But what happens to this rule when there is a Part 36 offer to consider, and that Part 36 offer has been made by the claimant and beaten at trial, but the claimant has not succeeded on all of their case?
In relation to the costs incurred after the effective date, the court found that the wording of CPR 36.14 (now CPR 36.17) meant that a successful party was entitled to “all his costs” on an indemnity basis, unless it would be unjust for that party to be awarded all of his costs. It further held that in deciding what costs order to make under CPR 36.14, the court does not first exercise its discretion under Part 44. Its only discretion is that conferred by Part 36 itself, which is a “self-contained code”. In referring to Part 36 being a self-contained code, Sir Stanley referenced Ward LJ in Shovelar v Lane and this seems to me to be an important principle to remember when considering Part 36 offers, especially Ward LJ’s conclusion that Part 36 trumps Part 44.