0370 270 6000

Taylor v Stagecoach Midland Red, County Court, 17 August 2001

11 March 2002
The issues

Part 36 Offers – effective Payment into Court.

The facts

The Claimant had an accident and brought an action against Stagecoach. She made a Part 36 Offer to the Defendant of £21,000.00. The Defendant subsequently paid into Court £12,500.00. Later the Defendant indicated that it was willing to accept the Claimant’s Part 36 Offer. The Claimant argued that the offer was no longer there to be accepted for two reasons, firstly as a matter of Contract Law and secondly because of a clear stipulation that time for acceptance was limited.

The decision

The Payment into Court had effectively been a rejection of Claimant’s Part 36 Offer. Moreover, the stipulation as to time made acceptance impossible in any event.

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