Further to my Part 1 blog on this topic, I now ask: what is there to gain from legislation in this area? What broader experience is there of apology legislation where it has been enacted? While time and space do not permit a global trawl to evaluate the effect of such legislation in all the countries in which it has been enacted, I can provide some examples.
The recent decision in Butters and another v Hayes considers whether, in the context of existing proceedings, the limitation period will continue to run if the claimant fails to pay the court fee.
Made an offer to your opponent under CPR 36.5? What happens next?
If the offer is accepted under CPR 36.11 within the “relevant period” as defined in CPR 36.3(g) (usually within 21 days unless fewer than that number are left before the trial is due to start), the case is compromised in the terms of the offer and the costs of the action belong to you, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed: see CPR 36.13(1).
However, what if the offer is rejected? The show will go on until trial, when the judge will decide who has won and who has lost, and will make an award of costs to reflect that outcome.
Suppose, next, that the opponent has a change of heart and wants to accept the offer at a point after the relevant period has expired. Herein lies a difficulty known as the “interest trap”. Whilst a Part 36 offer is treated as being inclusive of interest where it offers to pay or accept a sum of money, there is no automatic entitlement to any interest which has accrued since the date of the offer if it is accepted outside the “relevant period”. Expressed in a costs of action context, if the party entitled to costs offers to accept £100,000 inclusive of interest in settlement of their bill, but this is not accepted until six months after the expiry of the relevant period, the party paying costs will have saved half a year’s interest at 8%, since that is the rate payable on costs from the date of the costs order under the Judgments Act 1837.
