The court was asked whether a party who requires the court’s permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer may be granted such permission on the basis of information and for reasons not disclosed to the party to whom the offer was made.
Held: The Trust could not withdraw its part 36 offer to settle because the trust had refused to disclose any reasons for its decision.It had made the application without giving notice to he claimant. Leggatt J said that it would be ‘unlawful and improper’ for the court to receive evidence or argument from the defendant in support of a request for an adjournment without the claimant knowing the contents of that evidence and argument. Either the defendant serve the evidence and disclose its arguments to justify withdrawing the part 36 offer, or judgment be made in favour of the claimant.
Judges:
Leggatt J
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 3185 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Baxter and others v Limb Group of Companies CA 30-Jun-1994
The claimants had been employed at Hull Docks. They went on strike, were warned that a continuation of the strike would lead to dismissal, and after failing to return were dismissed. The Employment tribunal had found them fairly dismissed but for . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.537426