Charles v NTL Group Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 2004 (13 December 2002)

Charles v NTL Group Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 2004 (13 December 2002)

A Part 36 offer is effective when received by the offeree in writing, regardless of formal service under Part 6, unless the rules expressly require such service. Even if the offer was not strictly compliant, the court should exercise its discretion to give effect to the offer for costs purposes where justice so requires, as the method of communication did not prejudice the offeree.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 2004
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Denise Charles; Defendant/appellant: NTL Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Costs Following Personal Injury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Costs Consequences, Service of Documents, Settlement Offers, Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Part 36 Offers Costs Consequences Service of Documents Settlement Offers Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denise Charles

Claimant/respondent

NTL Group Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Costs Following Personal Injury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Part 36 offer must be formally served in accordance with Part 6 of the CPR to be effective
  2. 2 Whether a Part 36 offer sent by fax, where the recipient's solicitors have not agreed to accept service by fax, is valid
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to give costs consequences to an offer not strictly compliant with Part 36

Ratio Decidendi

A Part 36 offer is effective when received by the offeree in writing, regardless of formal service under Part 6, unless the rules expressly require such service. Even if the offer was not strictly compliant, the court should exercise its discretion to give effect to the offer for costs purposes where justice so requires, as the method of communication did not prejudice the offeree.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for costs below set aside and replaced with order in terms sought by the defendant/appellant
  • Appellant awarded costs under the Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000