PT-2022-BRS-000100 - [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch)

In the present case, each side claims to have been successful on the application, and accordingly seeks a costs order against the other. The defendants say that the claimant was dragging his feet and failing to implement the settlement terms, and that the application was necessary in order to make him do so. The claimant says that the defendants have not demonstrated (i) that the claimant was failing to honour the terms of the offer, (ii) that the documents annexed to the application notice represent those terms, or (iii) that they were ready to be signed. Accordingly, the application was not within CPR rule 36.14(8), and could not succeed. The claimant also says that the application was premature.

I may say at once that I do not think it is necessary, in order for an applicant to be able to make the application for an order under CPR rule 36.14(8) at all, to demonstrate that the respondent was in fact failing to honour the terms of the offer. The terms of the rule make clear that it is only necessary for the applicant to allege that the respondent is failing to honour the terms of the offer. What the court finds, and what order the court makes, if any, on that application must then depend on what facts are admitted or found.