![CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Case Note](https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2022/09/Jim-Hester.jpg)
CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Case Note
Citation: [2024] 1 WLR
High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division
Judge: Ritchie J
Background:
This was a clinical negligence claim where the claimant made a single Part 36 offer comprising a lump sum and a periodical payments order (PPO), which the defendant did not accept. Following a trial on quantum, the judge awarded the claimant a lower lump sum, but a higher PPO than her offer. The claimant then sought an order for indemnity costs, the additional award and interest on costs and damages under Part 36.17. She contended that her judgment was at least as advantageous as her offer.
The Claimant’s case:
The claimant contended that the judgment obtained was at least as advantageous as her Part 36 offer, arguing that the total value of the award (if capitalised, using the agreed life multiplier) was better in money terms than the total value of her offer (if capitalised, using the agreed life multiplier).
Judgment:
The court ruled that the judgment obtained was not at least as advantageous as the claimant's Part 36 offer, as the lump sum part of the judgment was not better in money terms than the lump sum part of the offer.
The court found that there was no unfairness to the Claimant, as she could have made Part 36 offers as to each part, as individual offers. It was up to the Claimant as to how the offer was made. In this case she would have beaten her PPO offer and the Part 36 consequences would follow, as to that element.
The system for determining the value of a Part 36 offer should be ‘kept simple and clear’ in order to encourage good practice by using a series of sanctions and rewards.
In short, it was found (paragraph 18):
“For an offeror to beat her Part 36 combined offer, she has to beat both parts. If she wishes protection for each part then individual offers can be made.”
Conclusion
This is a useful case, which clarifies a point for which there was previously no authority. It may lead to more offers being made comprising of the individual elements in the future.