Hawley and Luminar Leisure Plc

Hawley and Luminar Leisure Plc

The application was dismissed because the Part 36 offer of 9 November was explicitly withdrawn by the third defendants’ solicitors on 17 November and was therefore no longer available for acceptance. Alternatively, even if not withdrawn, there was an implied term that the offer could not be accepted after the appeal hearing concluded and judgment was reserved.

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
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Stay Appeal and Declare Acceptance of Part 36 Offer
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Offer and Acceptance, Settlement, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Part 36 Offers Offer and Acceptance Settlement Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 14 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

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Stay Appeal and Declare Acceptance of Part 36 Offer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Part 36 offer made less than 21 days before an appeal hearing remains open for acceptance after explicit withdrawal or after the hearing has concluded and judgment reserved
  2. 2 Whether a counter-offer constitutes rejection of a Part 36 offer in the context of CPR Part 36
  3. 3 Whether the court's permission is required to accept a Part 36 offer in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Part 36 offer of 9 November was explicitly withdrawn by the third defendants’ solicitors on 17 November and was therefore no longer available for acceptance. Alternatively, even if not withdrawn, there was an implied term that the offer could not be accepted after the appeal hearing concluded and judgment was reserved.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed