FKJ v RVT

FKJ v RVT

The Master’s refusal to permit reference to the Part 36 offer at the interlocutory stage was not wrong or unjust. The fact and terms of the offer were irrelevant to the proportionality, case management, and costs budgeting 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 appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: FKJ; Defendant/appellant: RVT; Defendant/appellant: QGN; Defendant/appellant: CBN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (refusal to Permit Reference to Part 36 Offer at Pre Trial Stage)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Without Prejudice Privilege, Case Management, Costs Budgeting, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Part 36 Offers Without Prejudice Privilege Case Management Costs Budgeting Summary Judgment

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FKJ

Claimant/respondent

RVT

Defendant/appellant

QGN

Defendant/appellant

CBN

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (refusal to Permit Reference 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 applications
  2. 2 Whether the Master had legal power or discretion 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’s refusal to permit reference to the Part 36 offer at the interlocutory stage was not wrong or unjust. The fact and terms of the offer were irrelevant to the proportionality, case management, and costs budgeting 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 appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellants’ appeal is dismissed.