Fionna Gavin Partner
Settlement offers: revised Part 36 comes into force
CPR Part 36 contains a set of rules governing the making of settlement offers and provides certain costs advantages for claimants that act as an incentive to settle disputes early. A failure to comply with the strict requirements of Part 36 can, however, mean that an offer does not attract these costs advantages.
As of 6 April 2015, Part 36 has been revised. It is, therefore, important that those making Part 36 offers familiarise themselves with the revisions.
Particularly worth noting is the fact that a time limited offer was not previously capable of being a valid Part 36 offer. This has now been amended so that a Part 36 offer may be automatically withdrawn after expiry of the relevant period in accordance with its terms.
The new CPR 36 also states expressly that a Part 36 offer may be made in respect of a counterclaim or other additional claims. This clears up the confusion under the previous version of Part 36 as to how and when a Part 36 could be made in respect of a counterclaim.
There has also been an amendment to deal with the situation where a claimant makes a very high Part 36 offer for almost the whole of its claim amount. The position now is that the court, in deciding whether it would be unjust to order the usual Part 36 costs consequences, can consider as an additional factor whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings.
Note that Part 36 applies only to settlement offers made in the context of court, rather than arbitration, proceedings. However, London arbitrators may in their discretion be guided by Part 36 when considering settlement offers made in arbitration that are analogous to a Part 36 offer.
Related news & insights
News / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening
23-11-2022 / Insurance, Maritime, Real Estate
We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow. Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors.
News / Shipping E-brief November 2022
17-11-2022 / Maritime
The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
News / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?
15-11-2022 / Maritime
In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.
News / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage
09-11-2022 / Maritime
CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk)  EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.
News / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance
09-11-2022 / Maritime
Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd  EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.
News / “Due” means due!
03-11-2022 / Maritime
Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1)  EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.