Category: Civil Litigation

Tactical CPR Part 36 Offers - Litigation Rewards

Tactical CPR Part 36 Offers: Litigation Rewards

CPR Part 36 is a powerful tactical mechanism within the Civil Procedure Rules that can dramatically shift litigation risk and costs. A compliant, well‑timed Part 36 offer can unlock indemnity costs, enhanced interest and Jackson uplifts for claimants, while giving defendants a crucial tool to cap exposure and force serious engagement with settlement.

London skyline (Houses of Parliament/Big Ben) with a cracked insurance contract, a bundle of Pound Sterling cash, and a symbolic broken chain. Represents the UK Court of Appeal ruling confirming COVID-19 business interruption cover and rejecting insurer arguments on causation

Insurers Lose Appeal on COVID-19 Business Interruption Cover (At-the-Premises Disease Clauses)

The Court of Appeal in London International Exhibition Centre plc v Allianz & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 upheld the High Court’s ruling that policyholders can recover COVID-19 business interruption losses under “at the premises” disease wordings, holding that each case of COVID-19 at the insured premises formed part of the concurrent cause of national closure orders.

Only with court permission under CPR 36.10. You must prove a "change of circumstances" (e.g., new evidence), not just a change of mind. See our litigation guide.

Chinda v Cardiff: Rules on Withdrawing Accepted Part 36 Offers

Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.