The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is not open to any defendant to decree unilaterally that where a money claim is being made against it, it will not make a payment into court but will make a written offer on the basis that Part 36 will apply as though he had made a payment into court. ‘ in making the decision, the judge had been exercising a discretion, and that exercise should not be disturbed.
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Mance And Sir Christopher Staughton
[2004] EWCA Civ 1332
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 836 44
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Amber v Stacey CA 15-Nov-2000
The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s . .
Cited – Southampton Container Terminals Ltd v Hansa Schiffahrts GmbH (The Maersk Colombo) CA 3-May-2001
The claimants operated the container terminal in Southampton. A crane was struck and damaged beyond repair by the defendants’ vessel. The crane was not replaced because before the casualty the claimants had ordered two new cranes. Loss of use of the . .
Cited – Calderbank v Calderbank CA 5-Jun-1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house to H occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Cited – Cumper v Pothecary 1941
The court considered the nature of a payment into court: ‘there is nothing contractual about payment into court. It is wholly a procedural matter and has no true analogy to a settlement arranged between the parties out of court, which, of course, . .
Cited – Flynn v Scougall CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had made a payment into court. She then applied to reduce the amount paid in, but the claimant accepted the original sum before that application was heard. The defendant appealed saying that their application operated as a stay.
Cited – MRW Technologies v Cecil Holdings 22-Jun-2001
The court heard an appeal against a Master’s order which had given the defendant permission under rule 36.6(5) to withdraw a Part 36 payment.
Held: The same considerations apply to giving permission to withdraw money in court as to refusing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.216445