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 permission to take it out. He inclined, following Marsh v. Frenchay Healthcare, to a more flexible approach to take account of the overriding objective.


Garland J


Unreported, 22 June 2001


Civil Procedure Rules 36.6(5)


England and Wales


CitedMarsh v Frenchay NHS Trust QBD 13-Mar-2001
The circumstances required to allow a person to withdraw money paid into court. The new rules created a flexibility unavailable under the old rules, and the case law associated with the old pre-Woolfe rules should not now determine how such . .
ApprovedCumper 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 by:

CitedCrouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.199958