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 refuse the application to refer to the Part 36 offer at the interlocutory stage because the fact and terms of the offer were irrelevant to the proportionality and costs issues before the court. Even if the Master had legal power to grant the application, she would not have done so on the facts. The decision was not wrong or unjust, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 411 (QB)
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 Refusal of Application to Refer to Part 36 Offer at Pre Trial Stage
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Disclosure Restrictions, Case Management, Costs Budgeting, Summary Judgment, Misuse of Private Information
Civil Procedure Part 36 Offers Disclosure Restrictions Case Management Costs Budgeting Summary Judgment 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 4 Authorities cited 17 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 Refusal of Application to Refer to Part 36 Offer at Pre Trial Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 36.16 prohibits disclosure of a Part 36 offer to an interlocutory judge for case management, costs budgeting, or summary judgment purposes
  2. 2 Whether the Master had legal power to permit reference to the Part 36 offer at the interlocutory stage
  3. 3 Whether the fact and terms of the Part 36 offer were relevant to proportionality or costs issues at the interlocutory stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to refuse the application to refer to the Part 36 offer at the interlocutory stage because the fact and terms of the offer were irrelevant to the proportionality and costs issues before the court. Even if the Master had legal power to grant the application, she would not have done so on the facts. The decision was not wrong or unjust, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed