Source: http://courtno83.blogspot.com/2012/03/thewlis-v-groupama-insurance-co-ltd.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 06:37:07
Document Index: 720706972

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

Court No. 83: Thewlis v Groupama Insurance Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 3 (TCC): costs, costs and more costs
The problem was that the offer did not comply fully with the provisions of Part 36 - the offer letter said that it could only be accepted after 22 days or later if either the costs are agreed or the Court gives permission. The Court had previously held that any ambiguity should be dealt with by reading the letter as according with Part 36 as far as it could, so that little provision - which was kicked out of the Part 36 regime by a revision to Part 36 not long before the offer letter was sent, which meant that costs would be automatic, rather than agreed - should be read accordingly. The Court refused to do so, in a tortuous attempt to say that, if a letter says "Part 36" in it and then contradicts Part 36, it cannot be a Part 36 offer. Essentially saying that the solicitor writing the letter misquoting the provisions of the part had taken it outside the part - even though he was doing his damnedest to get it within the part and the solicitors on the other side had not taken the point.
costs Part 36