The Court of Appeal held that a purported offer of compromise conditioned upon the parties negotiating a deed of release was inconsistent with the UCPR concept of an offer of compromise, and that refusal of the offer was not unreasonable where it did not encompass a component of the claim on which the appellant ultimately succeeded. The Court declined to make a Bullock order where the joinder of the second defendant added nothing to the claim against the first defendant and there was no genuine uncertainty as to the appropriate defendant or question of insolvency. The Court also emphasised that non-compliance with UCPR r 51.36(1) font size and line spacing requirements constitutes a flagrant breach and an illegitimate attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.