Is a Defendant's written settlement offer dated September 8, 2005 valid under Rule 37A?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Katz v. Cheikes and The Storytellers Group Enterprises Ltd., 2005 BCSC 1647 (CanLII):
The plaintiff’s position is that the defendant’s written settlement offer dated September 8, 2005 constitutes a valid written offer of settlement under Rule 37A. Unlike Rule 37 offers to settle which automatically expire as at the commencement of trial (by virtue of Rule 37(13)), the plaintiff submits that Rule 37A offers remain in place even during trial, unless formally withdrawn or revoked by the defendant. Applying the reasoning set out in Mackenzie v. Brooks (1999 BCCA 623) to the effect that Rule 37 offers operate in tandem or on a parallel track to informal settlement negotiations, the plaintiff submits that here the defendant’s formal offer to settle of September 8 remained in place, notwithstanding the negotiations of September 26th and each party’s rejection of the other’s offer to settle at that time. Defendant’s position:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the impact of reasonable settlement offers and the response of the litigants to settlement offers? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a formal settlement offer be revoked by an informal settlement offer? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an informal settlement offer co-exist with a formal settlement offer? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a court order costs to a defendant where an offer of settlement is in excess of the judgment? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to recover all his costs after the date of his settlement offer? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for making a settlement offer to multiple defendants? (British Columbia, Canada)
When an offer made by a defendant for the purpose of achieving a pre-trial settlement is reasonably refused, is the fact that the action is ultimately dismissed in its entirety a consideration for double costs? (British Columbia, Canada)
When an offer is made by a defendant for a pre-trial settlement is reasonably refused, is the fact that the entire action is ultimately dismissed in its entirety a factor in determining double costs? (British Columbia, Canada)
When an offer made by a defendant for pre-trial settlement is reasonably refused, is the fact that the action is ultimately dismissed in its entirety a factor in determining double costs? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between an initial and comprehensive settlement offer made by the respondent and a revised offer to settle? (British Columbia, Canada)
