0370 270 6000

David Hallam Limited v Langford

12 June 2000
The issues

Validity of a Part 36 Offer failing to comply with the formalities at Rule 35.5 (6) (b)

The facts

8 months before Trial the Claimant wrote a letter expressed to be a “formal offer made under Part 36 Civil Procedure Rules” and complied in all respects save but did not state that after 21 days the Offeree could only accept the offer if the parties agreed the liabilty of costs or the costs gave permission. On the morning of the trial the Defendant gave notice of acceptance. The Claimant asserted in the absence of words required that the letter by the rule that the letter was not a valid Part 36 Offer and was not capable of acceptance.

The decision

1. The use of the word “formal” on the fact of the letter was not enough to include my inference the required words.

2. The Claimant was not estopped from denying the insertion on the face of the letter that it was a Part 36 Offer.

3. It was not open to the Defendant to waive the apparent procedural irregularity.

4. The requirement to specify the information in Part 36 Rule 36.5(6) (b) was directory not mandatory in the absence of that information was not fatal. The letter therefore was a valid Part 36 Offer which had been accepted.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up