Part 36 Offer UK 2025: Settlement Strategy and Cost Consequences Explained

What Is a Part 36 Offer Under UK Civil Procedure Rules

A Part 36 offer UK is a formal written settlement proposal governed by Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules that carries specific cost consequences distinguishing it from ordinary settlement negotiations. Unlike informal "without prejudice" discussions, a valid Part 36 offer creates automatic financial rewards or penalties depending on whether the recipient accepts and whether trial outcomes exceed or fall short of the offered amount, making it a powerful mechanism for pressuring settlement in civil disputes.

For an offer to qualify as a valid Part 36 offer UK, it must comply with strict formal requirements under CPR 36.5. The offer must be made in writing, expressly state it is made pursuant to Part 36, specify a "relevant period" of at least 21 days during which the offeree must accept to receive standard cost protection, indicate whether it relates to the whole claim or only part, and state whether any counterclaim is taken into account. A defendant's offer to pay money must be for a single lump sum, with any staged payments occurring no more than 14 days after acceptance under CPR 36.6.

Essential Requirements for Valid Part 36 Offers

• Written Form: The offer must be in writing and can use Form N242A or a letter format clearly stating it is made under Part 36
• 21-Day Relevant Period: Must specify at least 21 days for acceptance (unless made within 21 days of trial) to secure automatic cost consequences
• Scope Clarity: Must state whether the offer covers the whole claim, part of it, or specific issues, and address any counterclaim
• Genuine Settlement Attempt: Courts require offers to represent a genuine attempt to settle rather than purely tactical manoeuvres
• Single Sum Requirement: Defendant offers to pay money must be for a single lump sum, not costs-inclusive global figures

Part 36 offers can be made at any time, including before court proceedings commence, and remain capable of acceptance unless expressly withdrawn. The offer operates "without prejudice save as to costs," meaning the trial judge remains unaware of any Part 36 offer until after delivering judgment on liability and quantum, at which point the offer becomes relevant to costs decisions. This mechanism creates genuine pressure because defendants cannot know whether their offer will ultimately be beaten, while claimants face uncertainty about whether rejecting a reasonable offer will prove costly.

Part 36 Cost Consequences: The Financial Impact of Acceptance or Rejection

The power of Part 36 lies in the automatic cost consequences that follow acceptance, rejection, or failure to beat an offer at trial. These consequences are codified in CPR 36.17 and designed to encourage settlement by imposing significant financial penalties on parties who unreasonably reject genuine settlement attempts. Understanding these consequences is essential for anyone involved in civil litigation, as the financial stakes often exceed the underlying claim value.

Consequences When Claimant Fails to Beat Defendant's Part 36 Offer

If a claimant rejects a defendant's Part 36 offer and subsequently fails to obtain a judgment "more advantageous" than the offer at trial, CPR 36.17(3) applies devastating cost consequences. The claimant becomes liable for the defendant's costs from the date the relevant period expired, assessed on the standard basis. This means a claimant who wins at trial but receives less than the defendant's Part 36 offer will typically pay both their own legal costs and the defendant's costs from the offer date—potentially resulting in a net financial loss despite winning the case.

Consequences When Claimant Beats Their Own Part 36 Offer

Conversely, where a claimant makes a Part 36 offer and obtains judgment "at least as advantageous" as their offer, CPR 36.17(4) provides substantial rewards including interest on damages at up to 10% above base rate from the relevant period expiry, costs on the indemnity basis (rather than standard basis) from that date, interest on those costs at up to 10% above base rate, and an additional amount of 10% of damages up to £500,000 plus 5% of amounts above that figure, capped at £75,000 total. These enhanced consequences create powerful incentives for defendants to take claimant offers seriously.

Hugh Grant and Prince Harry: Part 36 in High-Profile Litigation

The phone hacking litigation against News Group Newspapers has provided dramatic demonstrations of Part 36's settlement-forcing power. In April 2024, actor Hugh Grant publicly explained his reluctant settlement with NGN, stating that despite wanting to see his allegations "tested in court," the Part 36 offer mechanism left him facing potential liability for "something approaching £10 million in costs" even if every allegation was proven. This remarkable situation—where a claimant might win comprehensively yet still face massive financial liability—illustrates why Part 36 offers are described as "incredibly powerful" settlement tools.

Grant's case involved allegations including phone hacking, landline tapping, burglary of his flat and office, bugging of his car, illegal blagging of medical records, and destruction of evidence. NGN denied all wrongdoing but offered what Grant described as "an enormous sum of money" to settle. Under Part 36 rules, if Grant proceeded to trial and received even one penny less than the settlement offer, he would have become liable for both parties' legal costs from the offer date. As his lawyers advised this was "exactly what would most likely happen," Grant felt compelled to accept—demonstrating how Part 36 can effectively force settlement regardless of case merits.

News Group Newspapers has now settled over 1,600 claims, paying more than £1 billion in compensation and legal costs since the phone hacking scandal emerged. The consistent pattern—substantial settlements immediately before trial, each following Part 36 offers—demonstrates how deep-pocketed defendants can use Part 36 strategically to prevent public trials while paying significant sums. As media law expert Professor Ursula Smartt observed, "Very rarely now do you actually see civil actions going through. They settle out of court instead."

Part 36 Case Law Updates 2024-2025

Recent case law has reinforced and clarified Part 36's application, with several significant judgments demonstrating the courts' commitment to enforcing cost consequences strictly. In Barry v Barry [2025] EWHC 819 (KB), claimants who made a Part 36 offer that was rejected subsequently achieved a judgment beating their offer, resulting in an additional award of £75,000 under CPR 36.17(4)(d)—the maximum additional amount available. This case confirms that the enhanced consequences remain fully operational and courts will apply them where appropriate.

The Grierson v Grierson [2024] EWHC 3048 (Ch) decision reinforced the punitive nature of rejecting reasonable Part 36 offers. The defendant rejected a Part 36 offer that should have been accepted, causing unnecessary trial costs. The court ordered the defendant to pay the claimant's costs on an indemnity basis, emphasising that the substantial trial costs "should not have been incurred." This case underscores the importance of carefully evaluating Part 36 offers rather than reflexively rejecting them in hopes of better trial outcomes.

Key 2024-2025 Part 36 Developments

• New CPR 36.5(5): The 2024 CPR amendments introduced specific rules for Part 36 offers in fixed recoverable costs cases, affecting small, fast, and intermediate track claims under £100,000
• Henderson & Jones v Salica [2025]: Confirmed that failure to explicitly state "21 days" as the relevant period may not invalidate an offer if the context implies the standard period
• Masudur Rahman v Hassan [2024]: Clarified that "at least as advantageous" in money claims must be assessed by monetary comparison, while non-monetary claims require broader assessment
• Attersley v UK Insurance [2025]: Addressed cost consequences where claimants accept Part 36 offers after the relevant period in fixed costs cases
• ADR Integration: October 2024 CPR updates strengthened court powers to order or encourage alternative dispute resolution, with Part 36 offers increasingly viewed as part of broader settlement strategies

The Civil Justice Statistics for Q1 2025 show county court claims up 18% year-on-year to 490,000, with 93% of judgments being default judgments—indicating most defended claims settle before trial. The average time from issue to trial remains extended at 50+ weeks for small claims and 76+ weeks for multi-track claims, creating strong incentives for parties to resolve matters through Part 36 offers rather than enduring lengthy court processes.

Strategic Timing and Tactical Considerations for Part 36 Offers

The timing of a Part 36 offer UK can be as important as the amount offered. Offers made too early, before issues crystallise through disclosure or expert evidence, may be dismissed as premature or unrealistic. Conversely, offers made too late reduce pressure on opponents who have already invested heavily in trial preparation. The optimal moment typically occurs after disclosure when both parties can assess strengths and weaknesses, or after expert reports clarify quantum—timing that maximises the offer's psychological and financial impact.

Strategic considerations vary depending on whether you are making or receiving a Part 36 offer. Claimants benefit from early offers that cap litigation risk and, if beaten at trial, yield indemnity costs plus enhanced interest and the additional amount up to £75,000. Defendants use Part 36 offers to create uncertainty for claimants who must weigh the offer against litigation risk, knowing that falling short means paying both sides' costs. In "all or nothing" cases where the claim will either succeed completely or fail entirely, claimant Part 36 offers are particularly powerful because defendants cannot easily pitch counter-offers.

The requirement for offers to represent "genuine attempts to settle" limits tactical misuse. In Gohil v Sainsbury's, a claimant's offer at 99.999% of claim value (7p discount) was held not to be a genuine settlement attempt, denying enhanced cost consequences. Courts retain discretion under CPR 36.17(5) to disapply consequences where "unjust," considering factors including the terms of the offer, timing, information available, and party conduct. However, as demonstrated by cases like Pallett v MGN, this discretion is exercised sparingly—the offeree bears a "heavy burden" to justify departure from default consequences.

Professional legal advice remains essential when navigating Part 36 offers. The procedural requirements are strict, and small drafting errors can invalidate offers or reduce their effectiveness. Strategic considerations extend beyond the offer amount to include timing, scope, and coordination with broader litigation strategy. Whether pursuing commercial disputes, contractual claims, or other civil matters, understanding Part 36's tactical implications can determine not just case outcomes but overall financial results.