Q&As

Implications of Rejected Part 36 Offer in Legally Aided Cases

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published by a LexisNexis Family expert

Published on: 30 July 2019

Where a claimant's offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is rejected by the defendant in proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, and the defendant then becomes legally aided, what implications could this have in relation to the final hearing and costs?

Where a party is legally aided, qualified costs protection arises. The provisions are now found in section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), supplemented by the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/611, but were previously found in similar form in section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999).

LASPO 2012, s 26 provides that costs ordered against an individual in relevant civil proceedings (which includes proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996)) must not exceed the amount (if any) which it is reasonable for the individual to pay having regard to all of the circumstances, including all parties’ financial resources and conduct within the proceedings. Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations

Powered by Lexis+^®

Jurisdiction(s):

United Kingdom

Key definition:

Claimant definition

What does Claimant mean?

A person who brings a claim.

Popular documents

Case law definitions of cohabitation

Case law definitions of cohabitationThere are various definitions of cohabitation within case law. Under the remedies available to cohabitants, the first step will be to establish that the relationship is sufficient to satisfy a specific remedy. The question of whether cohabitation has taken place

Case law relating to TOLATA 1996 claims

Case law relating to TOLATA 1996 claimsThis Practice Note provides guidance on case law in relation to claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), including the leading decisions in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. It also considers case law regarding the

TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8

TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8This Practice Note explains the distinction between Parts 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 in relation to claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) and also contains an

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a