In another case where the claimant had beaten their own Part 36 benefits they did not get the benefit of the CPR Part 36 Rules! Its all going backward again and no doubt has to be referred to the Supreme Court for final determination.
In the case of Yieldpoint Stable Value Fund, LP v Kimura Commodity Trade Finance Fund Ltd, a claimant has been denied the benefits of Part 36 after the court determined that their offer to settle was not a genuine attempt to reach a resolution. Stephen Houseman KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, ruled that the offer amounted to an ultimatum rather than a meaningful effort to settle the dispute. The judge clarified that his decision should not discourage claimants from making Part 36 offers but rather encourage them to make offers at a level that is not perilously close to the full value of the claim, particularly in cases of high adversarial intensity.
The court acknowledged that the case involved strongly opposing views and that the outcome was far from obvious. The judge emphasized that a discount of just 1% in such a context was meaningless. While the ruling reflected that the Part 36 offer was not genuine, it did not suggest any impropriety or cynical manipulation on the part of the claimant or their lawyers. Ultimately, the claimant took a legal risk in making the offer, but it did not create a real chance of settling the dispute prior to trial.
Further reading on Part 36 offers
See Part 36 Law Society Gazette
