Top-up fees: a growing risk for councils
Prohibitions orders, assessments and the HSSRS
Highways, kerbs and intervention levels
Local government reorganisation and historic liabilities
The status of co-opted members
Open Justice Principle – Where are the lines drawn in care proceedings?
What's the best way to manage conflict between colleagues in schools and colleges?
Scrutiny of professionals working in Children Act litigation
Teacher dismissed after joking about 'whacking' a pupil: was the decision fair?
Fear of harm and plans for adoption
Electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots
Issues Resolution Hearings, threshold criteria and adequacy of reasons
Foster carers and manifestation of religious belief
Contempt, disclosure failures, and information governance
The ‘Hillsborough Law’, senior leaders and prevention of critical harm
Hoarding and learning from inquests – safeguarding to prevent tragic outcomes
Judging the use of AI
The Hammad appeal – Housing authority responses to homelessness in England and Wales
Natural justice and costs in the Court of Protection
The Procurement Act 2023: 10 months on, how is it going?
Costs, detailed assessment and misconduct
Airport expansion, EIAs and emissions
Boosting localised procurement - Reform to Section 17 LGA 1988
The Autumn Budget and Public-Private Partnerships
Calculation of Biodiversity Net Gain
The new National Licensing Policy Framework
The Social and Affordable Homes Programme: key points
Caravan site licensing and planning control
From 1925 to 2025
Licence revocation appeals and a change in circumstances
Self-neglect and capacity
Renewal of telecoms leases and building safety regulation
Procurement Act 2023: Anticipating and avoiding procurement disputes
Access injunctions: legal pathways to forced access and decants
Preparing for heat network regulation: timelines, obligations, and next steps
The lost enforcement of section 21
Housing case alert - November 2025
Section 21 - It’s not over yet
Expert evidence in housing conditions claims
Inquests and Housing
Wolverhampton Traveller injunctions – where are we now?
Is there a discretion to extinguish CIL?
Balancing public interest and planning control – accommodation of asylum seekers
Meaning of father in s2 Children Act 1989
A “43 moment” for the local government workforce
Section 193 LPA 1925: public access to commons and waste land
Growing apart?
Political and mayoral assistants
PFI expiry and employees
Welsh-medium inquests and the death register
The future of housing: What procurement and contracts teams need to know
No liability for sap falling on the public highway
Weapons in Cardiff educational settings: new guidance for schools
Public Sector High Court Litigation in 2025: Key trends so far
Enjoying the challenge
Abandoning procurements: risky business
The surge in Subsidy Control litigation
Dispersal of asylum seekers
Causation and being “homeless intentionally”
Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England
Facts still very much matter
Court of Appeal rules on exclusions once again
Faith-based oversubscription criteria
How to place children abroad after Re M
Fact finding in the Court of Protection
Discrimination arising from disability: did a school discriminate against a pupil when it excluded her?
Care cases involving multiple allegations
SEND and pupils absent due to health needs
Granting of parental responsibility
Confidentiality clauses and severance payments in FE colleges and Academy Trusts
The importance of an adequate mortgagee exclusion clause
Managing AI Risks in Local Government
Reconciling Conflicting Private and Public Interests on Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects
Subsidy Control – top tips for public authorities referring measures to the CMA's Subsidy Advice Unit
Awaab’s Law and Fitness for Human Habitation – the same, but different?
Daylight/sunlight material consideration for planning purposes
Article 4 Directions in Wales
Not all fun and games
Children law update - October 2025
Where now for the ‘right’ to park?
Zip-wires in caverns
Fix it fast: How “Awaab’s Law” is forcing action in social housing
Housing management in practice: six challenges shaping the sector
The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and rent paid during periods of unfitness
From the front line of HMO licensing
Housing case alert: September/October 2025
Litigators beware! Recent changes to Part 36 Offers
- Details
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021 (‘the CPAR 2021’) introduce a new Civil Procedure Rule 36.5(5) to clarify the issue of interest after the expiry of Part 36 offers. Mia Plume examines its impact.
Part 36 Offers
A Part 36 Offer is a written offer to settle which must specify a period of not less than 21 days (‘the Relevant Period’) during which it can be accepted. If it is not accepted within the Relevant Period and the other party does not beat that offer then there will be costs consequences.
Part 36 Offers are one of the most significant tactical steps that parties can take in legal proceedings. They are designed to incentivise parties to settle disputes without going to trial (even if proceedings have not yet been issued). They can be made by either a Claimant or Defendant at any stage in civil proceedings.
The new rule
The CPAR 2021, which came into force on 6 April 2021, amends Part 36 with the new rule 36.5(5). The new rule enables the party making an offer to include provision for interest to accrue after the expiry of the Relevant Period. The new rule is as follows:
“36.5(5) A Part 36 offer to accept a sum of money may make provision for accrual of interest on such sum after the date specified in paragraph (4). If such an offer does not make any such provision, it shall be treated as inclusive of all interest up to the date of acceptance if it is later accepted”.
The new rule has been brought in as a result of the case of King v City of London [2019] EWCA Civ 2266 [2019] EWCA Civ 2266. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a Part 36 Offer that excludes interest is not a valid Part 36 offer as it would not be compliant with the CPR. It found that Part 36 proceeds on the basis that interest is ancillary to a claim, rather than a severable part which can be hived off.
Prior to this decision, there were conflicting lower court decisions on the question of whether an offer that excluded interest could be a valid Part 36 Offer.
Effect of the new rule
Under the new rule, a party making an offer who constructs it so that they provide for interest to run after the end of the Relevant Period will be compensated should there be any delay by the other party in accepting the offer outside of that period. There is now no doubt that an offer which excludes interest will not be a valid Part 36 Offer. The offer is deemed to include interest up to the 21 days it can be accepted. Thereafter, unless there is a specific provision in the offer, it is deemed to include interest up to the date it is “later accepted”. Legal representatives should, as a matter of course, include provisions for interest to accrue if the offer is accepted late.
The rule does not state the level of interest that can be claimed but it is worth bearing in mind that the judgment debt rate is 8% and so legal representatives should consider what would be reasonable. Also, an unrealistic rate of interest may mean that any judgment was not more advantageous than the offer containing such an interest rate and, as a result, the costs consequences of Part 36 would not apply.
The new rule will inevitably serve as a further mechanism to apply more pressure on any opponents (especially defendants) to accept the offer on the table. A party can no longer assume that they will be entitled to accept the other side’s Part 36 Offer after the expiry of the Relevant Period without facing consequences such as the accrual of interest (at a reasonably high rate).
Practical tips
- Include provisions in the Part 36 Offer for interest to accrue if the offer is accepted late but be cautious as to the interest rate;
- Always diarise for the expiry of the Relevant Period; and
- Continually review any Part 36 Offers to see if they (i) still afford sufficient costs protection; and/or (ii) should be withdrawn due to developments in the case.
Mia Plume is an associate (Chartered Legal Executive) at Browne Jacobson.
Must read
Local authority legal teams after Mazur
Antisocial Behaviour Legal Officer
Regulatory/Litigation Lawyer
Locums
Poll
18-03-2026 1:00 pm
01-07-2026 11:00 am





