Drafting Part 36: Getting it Right

On occasion, the courts have done what they can to apparently relax the requirements of the rules.  It has been said that if there are formal or technical defects to a Part 36 offer, provided they cause no real uncertainty or other prejudice to the offeree, the court may order that the usual Part 36 costs consequences will follow.  For example, in Huntley v Simmonds [2009] EWHC 406, Underhill J found that a failure to include in an offer the statement required by CPR 36.5(4) (as to ensuring the continuity of periodical payments in a personal injury case) was a technical defect and should not prevent the court from making a costs order in the terms set out in CPR 36.14.