Litigation by its nature is hazardous and risky. However, where a party feels it has a robust case and makes an assessment that it would be willing to settle at 90% of the value of the claim, this should not have affected its ability to reap the rewards that Part 36 provides. 

As Part 36 is prescriptive in its nature, I find it difficult to understand the position adopted by the Defendant. I say this without reading the judgment, however on the face of it, because of the prescriptive nature of Part 36, it appears that the arguments raised by the Defendant were thin. 

Putting this to one side, the important message in this article is that there is nothing wrong in putting forward a Part 36 offer, which represents a party's view that its case is strong and robust. Certainly we have in the past made high Part 36 offers and this was done so on the basis of our assessment that the merits were strong. 

If a party feels it has a robust and strong case, it should not be penalised for having not made bigger concessions in its Part 36, particularly where it has mostly (or fully) succeeded in getting judgment for what it has sought in the litigation.