KG & Ors v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. & Anor

KG & Ors v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that, despite the sealing of the main order, it retained jurisdiction to make ancillary Part 36 orders in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant. The court found that the procedural posture and submissions made before sealing indicated the applications were live, and it would be unjust to deny the claimants the benefit of Part 36 orders due to procedural technicalities. The three claimants were entitled to be joined to the Part 36 appeal and to receive similar orders as the other successful claimants.

Parties
Appellants/claimants: DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM (and other claimants); First Defendant: Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation); Second Defendant/respondent: Royal and Sun Alliance PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Judgment, on Application for Ancillary Orders Following Main and Part 36 Appeals
Outcome
Application allowed; three additional claimants joined to Part 36 appeal and granted similar orders as other successful claimants. Costs of the application to be paid by the second defendants, but not on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Jurisdiction After Sealing of Order, Ancillary Orders, Costs
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Part 36 Offers Jurisdiction After Sealing of Order Ancillary Orders Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM (and other claimants)

Appellants/claimants

Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation)

First Defendant

Royal and Sun Alliance PLC

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment, on Application for Ancillary Orders Following Main and Part 36 Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal retained jurisdiction to make Part 36 orders in favour of claimants not originally party to the Part 36 appeal after the main order was sealed
  2. 2 Whether the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant could be joined and benefit from Part 36 orders post-sealing
  3. 3 Whether the second defendants' change of position affected the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, despite the sealing of the main order, it retained jurisdiction to make ancillary Part 36 orders in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant. The court found that the procedural posture and submissions made before sealing indicated the applications were live, and it would be unjust to deny the claimants the benefit of Part 36 orders due to procedural technicalities. The three claimants were entitled to be joined to the Part 36 appeal and to receive similar orders as the other successful claimants.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; three additional claimants joined to Part 36 appeal and granted similar orders as other successful claimants. Costs of the application to be paid by the second defendants, but not on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Three additional claimants joined to the Part 36 appeal.
  • Part 36 orders made in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant, in the same terms as for other successful claimants.