FKJ v RVT & Ors [2022] EWHC 411 (QB) (25 February 2022)

FKJ v RVT & Ors [2022] EWHC 411 (QB) (25 February 2022)

The Master was entitled to find that the fact and terms of the Respondent's Part 36 offer were irrelevant to the interlocutory applications for summary judgment, case management, and costs budgeting, and should not be disclosed. Even if the Master had legal power to permit disclosure, it would not have affected the outcome, as the offer was not material to the issues before the court.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 411
Parties
Claimant/respondent: FKJ; Defendant/appellant: RVT; Defendant/appellant: QGN; Defendant/appellant: CBN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Part 36 Offers, Case Management, Costs Budgeting, Misuse of Private Information
Civil Procedure Media Law Disclosure of Part 36 Offers Case Management Costs Budgeting Misuse of Private Information

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FKJ

Claimant/respondent

RVT

Defendant/appellant

QGN

Defendant/appellant

CBN

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 36.16 prohibits disclosure of Part 36 offers to interlocutory judges
  2. 2 Relevance of Part 36 offer to proportionality and costs management
  3. 3 Scope of 'without prejudice except as to costs' in Part 36 context

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to find that the fact and terms of the Respondent's Part 36 offer were irrelevant to the interlocutory applications for summary judgment, case management, and costs budgeting, and should not be disclosed. Even if the Master had legal power to permit disclosure, it would not have affected the outcome, as the offer was not material to the issues before the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants' application for disclosure of Part 36 offer refused
  • No order for costs management or summary judgment based on Part 36 offer