The Practical Lawyer


Part 36 – late acceptance

If a Part 36 offer is accepted out of time (ie outside the 21 day period) in a low value protocol case, then what are the costs consequences? In particular, does late acceptance mean a liability to pay standard (or indemnity) costs – rather than fixed costs – from the 21 day period through to the date of acceptance? The CA has confirmed that it does not; fixed costs still apply.

The case was a straightforward RTA. The claimant made a Part 36 offer (£1,500) in November, but the defendant did not accept it until the following June (the week before the case was due to come to court). Not surprisingly, the claimant argued that he should recover fixed costs for the initial period (up until expiry of the 21 day period for acceptance), and thereafter receive standard (or indemnity) costs until the date of acceptance. The CA disagreed. It pointed out that under the CPR there are only two exceptions to the rule that a claimant should recover fixed costs: (1) if the Part 36 offer is beaten at trial, or (2) if there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. The CA took the view that the claimant could not argue that seven months’ delay, even with no apparent justification, amounted to ‘exceptional circumstances’. Thus, fixed costs applied.

If the position is reversed, and there is late acceptance by a claimant of a defendant’s Part 36 offer, similar principles apply: the defendant pays the claimant’s fixed costs up to the expiry of the 21 day period, and the claimant pays the defendant’s fixed costs until the date of late acceptance (or trial).

There are many who disagree with this approach. In simple terms, it encourages defendants to delay acceptance until the final moment, and game the system. Undoubtedly, the decision undermines the tactical impact of the claimant making an early Part 36 offer.

One final point made in the Gazette is that the courts should, at the least, consider adding interest on the settlement offer to take account of the delay in it being accepted. While that is hardly likely to make a significant difference it would at least be a gesture in the right direction. See commentary on Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 (this case report is available in full at Source: [2018] LSG 30 July.


Most-read articles

Constructive trusts – property
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The author gives a helpful analysis of a ruling following a claim to establish a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel in respect of a domestic property. The deceased died intestate while living... Read more...
Professional negligence – adjudication
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Professional Negligence Adjudication Scheme is run by the Professional Negligence Bar Association. It offers a voluntary ADR procedure, modelled on the adjudication system in construction... Read more...
Waste – L’s liability
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Ls should be aware of the environmental enforcement obligations that may be incurred as a result of T’s activities. Read more...
Part 36 – late acceptance
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
If a Part 36 offer is accepted out of time (ie outside the 21 day period) in a low value protocol case, then what are the costs consequences? In particular, does late acceptance mean a liability to... Read more...
HMOs – new rules
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The definition of house in multiple occupation (HMO) changes on 1 October 2018. The new definition covers properties occupied by five or more people, comprising two or more separate households. Read more...
Energy efficiency – reassessment by T?
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Energy Efficiency (MEES) Regs mean it is no longer possible to grant new leases to properties with an EPC of F or G. Moreover, existing lettings of F and G properties will become unlawful from... Read more...
Knotweed – nuisance
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Last year, we had county court claims in Cardiff and Truro in which it was held that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed would be actionable as a ‘private nuisance’. The Cardiff cases have now... Read more...
Procedure – expert witnesses
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
Expert witnesses must comply with court rules and related guidance appropriate to their area of expertise. New guidance for paediatric expert witnesses in family proceedings has now been issued. Read more...
Self-employed – or worker?
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Pimlico Plumbers case was seen as a victory for workers in the gig economy, with the Supreme Court looking at the reality of the relationship (rather than the legal labels attached). So, what... Read more...
Offences – mens rea
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
This was a pre-trial appeal of a ruling at a preparatory hearing. The two appellants (A) faced charges under s17 Terrorism Act 2000 of sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, knowing or having... Read more...


IAG International
MSI Global Alliance
Join the IBA now!
In House Lawyer