Understanding the Validity of Part 36 Offers
In a recent High Court ruling, a Part 36 offer was deemed valid despite the failure of the claimant to specify the “relevant period” correctly. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of Part 36 offers and their historical context.
In Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm), Mr Justice Calver addressed significant issues regarding the enforcement of financial agreements and the interpretation of contractual terms.
The case centred around a dispute involving complex financial arrangements and the obligations of the parties under these agreements. It involved a claimant who made an offer that did not explicitly state the 21-day period required by CPR Part 36.5(1)(c).
Despite this oversight, Mr Justice Calver found the offer compliant, highlighting that the history and context of the offer played a crucial role in its interpretation. The court also emphasised that the intent behind the offer and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to uphold its validity.
This case serves as a reminder that while the technical aspects of drafting offers are crucial, the courts may also consider the broader context and intent behind the offer. The decision demonstrates a willingness to uphold the validity of offers when the intent and context are clear, even if there are minor procedural errors.
As legal professionals, we should take note of this ruling and ensure that Part 36 offers are drafted with care and precision to meet all current procedural requirements.
