½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

View the related checklists about Part 36 offer

Part 36 in split trial cases—checklist

Part 36 in split trial cases—checklist This Checklist considers acceptance and disclosure of Part 36 offers in split trial cases noting the additional factors for the parties to consider. For detailed guidance on Part 36 offers in split trial cases, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—split trial cases. For further guidance on accepting a Part 36 offer generally, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—how and when to accept a Part 36 offer. Scenario Guidance Accepting a Part 36 offer which relates to only parts of the claim or issues to be determined (eg accepting a Part 36 offer on liability only where there is going to be a trial on liability). A Part 36 offer in relation only to parts or issues in the claim cannot be accepted once the trial (in this example, on liability) has been decided even if other issues in the case (such as quantum) that are yet to be determined (CPR 36.12(2)).Where the trial has not been determined, the Part 36 offer can be...

View the related practice notes about Part 36 offer

Pre-6 April 2015 rule 36—what is a Part 36 offer and what is its effect? [Archived]

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is for historical reference only as it explains Part 36 of the CPR as it was in force prior to 6 April 2015. If you have received or are making a Part 36 offer on or after 6 April 2015 you need to refer to the current in force CPR 36 and our Practice Notes and Precedents covering this, see: Part 36 offers—overview.If you have made or are in receipt of a Part 36 offer which pre-dates 6 April 2015 then the Part 36 rules in force prior to that date apply. You can access a copy of the pre-6 April 2015 Part 36 rules here:If you have made or are in receipt of a Part 36 offer which pre-dates 6 April 2015 but where a trial of any part of the claim or any issue arising in it is due to start on or after 6 April 2015 then you will need to consider the...

Pre-6 April 2015 rule 36—is this a valid Part 36 offer? [Archived]

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is for historical reference only as it explains Part 36 of the CPR as it was in force prior to 6 April 2015. If you have received or are making a Part 36 offer on or after 6 April 2015 you need to refer to the current in force CPR 36 and our Practice Notes and Precedents covering this, see: Part 36 offers—overview.If you have made or are in receipt of a Part 36 offer which pre-dates 6 April 2015 then the Part 36 rules in force prior to that date apply. You can access a copy of the pre-6 April 2015 Part 36 rules here:If you have made or are in receipt of a Part 36 offer which pre-dates 6 April 2015 but where a trial of any part of the claim or any issue arising in it is due to start on or after 6 April 2015 then you will need to consider the...

View the related precedents about Part 36 offer

Part 36 offer—defendant Part 36 offer letter

Part 36 offer—defendant Part 36 offer letter Note: This precedent defendant Part 36 offer letter does not cover CPR 36 provisions that relate specifically to fixed costs cases. For information on Part 36 offers in fixed costs cases, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position prior to 1 October 2023) and Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023). [insert name and address of claimant or claimant’s legal representative] [insert date] Without prejudice—save as to costs Dear [insert organisation name] [Pre-action] Part 36 offer [Claimant v Defendant—Case number] We refer to the above [potential ]matter in which we act for [insert name of your client]. [Our client is confident that your client’s claim is unsustainable but because [insert explanation as appropriate] we have been instructed to put forward an offer under Part 36 of the CPR (‘the Offer’). For the avoidance of doubt, this Offer is made pursuant to Part 36. OR Our client wishes to seek to resolve this matter amicably...

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide This document provides general guidance regarding the property rights of cohabitants and claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Who can apply? Cohabitants do not have the same rights to make property claims as married couples or civil partners. Instead, disputes between cohabitants regarding their interests in a property are determined in accordance with the law of trusts. The 'common law' wife or husband does not exist in law, and claims by cohabitants are very limited in comparison with spouses or civil partners. In some circumstances it may be possible to make a claim on behalf of a child (see: Financial arrangements for children—client guide). There are two main ways in which a cohabitant may have an interest in a property: • as a joint owner, or • where the property is in the...

View the related News about Part 36 offer

Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: the case of WTGIL Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Gallagher being liable for data breach insurance cover failure; the publication of a report by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) on the costs and past performance of retail investment products in insurance and pensions from 2020–2023; the publication of an application paper by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) on the supervision of climate-related risks in insurance sector; cases and decisions; key dates for your diary and other news highlights reported over the past week.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a Court of Appeal decision which considered causation in a mesothelioma claim. We also consider a High Court judgment which found that the fixed costs regime was disapplied retrospectively on allocation to the multi-track. In addition, we have our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.