View source for C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646

''(1) A settlement offer which is time-limited is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) in the context of the intention to comply with Part 36, the statement that the offer be 'open for 21 days' did not mean that it was a time-limited offer (rather, it was indicating that it could be withdrawn after 21 days); (3) on the facts, the Part 36 offer had not expired and was capable of acceptance.''

==Related judgments==
[[C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646]]
*[[C v D (2010) EWHC 2940 (Ch)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646}}

==Other==
Hearing: 19/4/11

Judgment: 27/5/11

Before: Rix, Rimer, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Ms Sue Carr QC and Mr Jonathan Hough (instructed by Messrs Rawlison Butler LLP) for the Appellant

Mr Michael Barnes QC (instructed by SJ Berwin) for the Respondent

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) EWCA Civ 646}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2011-186 ICLR website]

[[Category:Miscellaneous cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]