Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Tim Calland (instructed by Estate Legal Ltd) for the Claimant John McGhee KC and Kester Lees KC (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 25 February 2026 ____________________
This in my view is to make clear that (1) a party can offer to settle a case in any way that they like outside the confines of Part 36, but (2) only an offer that complies with rule 36.5 has effect as a Part 36 offer. Rule 36.5 therefore describes the mandatory requirements of a Part 36 offer.
This describes the different kinds of Part 36 offer that may be made, namely an offer in relation to the whole of a claim, a part of that claim, or even an issue in the claim, and similarly for any counterclaim, additional claim, appeal or cross-appeal separately.
These are the mandatory provisions and are the only ones that apply under rule 36.5, save in relation to a personal injury claim. Paragraph (d) concerns what an offer must state, so that the scope and potential effect of the offer is understood by the offeree.
Rule 36.17 goes on to specify the consequences in each of the cases (a) and (b) in rule 36.17(1), which the court will order to apply "unless the court considers it unjust to do so".
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.