0370 270 6000

MacDonald v Richmond Boat Project, County Court, 16 March 2000

15 September 2000
The issues

Whether a Part 36 payment had to be broken down and whether a global settlement offer was acceptable.

The facts

A Part 36 Offer was made to settle the whole claim later supported by a payment into Court. The claimant requested a breakdown saying that he could not be properly advised without it. That application was rejected on the basis that there was no power in the Civil Procedure Rules to seek breakdown but only a power to seek clarification.

The decision

The Defendant was entitled to make the offer that had been made. The interests of justice were served by such an offer. It had never been the Defendant’s intention to distinguish between general and special damages. To order it to make such a distinction was entirely artificial.

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