0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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