Where the existence of a Part 36 offer had been disclosed to a judge of the appeal court, it was for the judge to have determined whether that disclosure made a fair hearing possible or whether justice required the judge to recuse herself.
The defendant (S) appealed a decision that he had been liable, subject to contributory negligence, for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant (G) in a road traffic accident. G's claim was initially dismissed on the finding that there had been no negligence on the part of S. G's appeal from that decision was allowed to the extent that S was held to have been negligent but that G had contributed to the accident. This appeal from that decision had been brought on the grounds that, contrary to CPR r.52.12(1) , a Part 36 offer had been inadvertently disclosed to the judge hearing the appeal as part of the appeal documents. Accordingly, S argued that (1) that procedural irregularity was so serious so as to require interference with the judge's decision; or alternatively (2) the judge was wrong to have interfered with the trial judge's decision on the merits of the case.
To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.