Hawley and Luminar Leisure Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 30 (01 February 2006)

Hawley and Luminar Leisure Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 30 (01 February 2006)

The application was dismissed because the Part 36 offer was explicitly withdrawn on 17 November and, in any event, carried an implied term that it was not open for acceptance after the appeal hearing concluded and judgment was reserved.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 30
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Philip Hawley; First Defendants/second Appellants: Luminar Leisure PLC; Second Defendants: ASE Security Services Limited; Third Defendants/first Appellants: David Preston Mann (as nominated underwriter for Faraday Underwriting Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application Following Reserved Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Settlement, Offer and Acceptance, Withdrawal of Offers, Costs Consequences
Civil Procedure Contract Law Part 36 Offers Settlement Offer and Acceptance Withdrawal of Offers Costs Consequences

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Philip Hawley

Claimant/respondent

Luminar Leisure PLC

First Defendants/second Appellants

ASE Security Services Limited

Second Defendants

David Preston Mann (as nominated underwriter for Faraday Underwriting Limited)

Third Defendants/first Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application Following Reserved Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Part 36 offer made less than 21 days before an appeal hearing can be accepted after explicit withdrawal or after the hearing has concluded
  2. 2 Whether a counter-offer constitutes rejection of a Part 36 offer in the context of CPR Part 36
  3. 3 Whether an implied term limits the time for acceptance of a Part 36 offer in appeal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Part 36 offer was explicitly withdrawn on 17 November and, in any event, carried an implied term that it was not open for acceptance after the appeal hearing concluded and judgment was reserved.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay and declaration that the Part 36 offer was validly accepted is refused.