In considering costs issues following judgment in a complex patent action, the High Court had to determine whether it was appropriate for the court to be
In our e-bulletin dated 16 February, we reported on the Court of Appeal's decision in Swain-Mason and ors v Mills & Reeve 2011 EWCA Civ 14 which, we said, signalled a strict approach to applications for late amendments.
In a very recent judgment the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's decision that an offer that was expressed to be made under Part 36 and to be "open for 21 days" was time-limited and therefore not a valid Part 36 offer: C v D 2011 EWCA Civ 646.
In a judgment handed down in January, the Court of Appeal has sent a strong message against taking a relaxed approach to late amendments and as to the precision required for a proper pleading: Swain-Mason and ors v Mills & Reeve 2011 EWCA Civ 14.
A very recent Court of Appeal decision confirms that a party will not be penalised for making a Part 36 offer to settle, even where the level of the offer turns out to be misjudged: Rolf v De Guerin 2011 EWCA Civ 78.
A recent High Court judgment has important practical implications for how offers are drafted under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and for the possible costs consequences of offers previously made: C v D & D2 2010 EWHC (Ch), 16 November 2010.