Bentley Design Consultants Ltd v Sansom [2018] EWHC 2238 (TCC) (29 August 2018)

Bentley Design Consultants Ltd v Sansom [2018] EWHC 2238 (TCC) (29 August 2018)

A Part 36 offer to settle 'the whole of this claim' is limited to the claim as it existed at the time the offer was made; acceptance after amendment to add a new, distinct claim does not compromise the newly added claim unless the offer is expressly extended or varied to include it.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2238 (TCC)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bentley Design Consultants Limited; Respondent/claimant: Malcolm Sansom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Exeter County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Part 36 Offers, Settlement of Claims, Interpretation of Settlement Offers, Joinder of Claims, Professional Negligence in Construction Services
Civil Procedure Contract Law Professional Negligence Construction of Part 36 Offers Settlement of Claims Interpretation of Settlement Offers Joinder of Claims Professional Negligence in Construction Services

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bentley Design Consultants Limited

Appellant/defendant

Malcolm Sansom

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Exeter County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance of a Part 36 offer to settle 'the whole of this claim' after amendment of particulars of claim compromises both original and newly added claims
  2. 2 Proper construction of a Part 36 offer in the context of amended proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

A Part 36 offer to settle 'the whole of this claim' is limited to the claim as it existed at the time the offer was made; acceptance after amendment to add a new, distinct claim does not compromise the newly added claim unless the offer is expressly extended or varied to include it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The effect of the defendant's letter dated 8 November 2016 was to compromise only the claimant's claim for damages and breach of duty in relation to Plot 1 as set out in paragraphs 10 and 16 to 18 of the amended particulars of claim dated 28 June 2016.
  • The claimant's claim so identified is stayed on terms that the defendant is to pay the claimant the sum of £25,025 within 14 days of 8 November 2016.