AF v BG

AF v BG

The offer letter was a valid Part 36 offer relating to the whole proceedings, including both the original claim and the proposed counterclaim. Upon acceptance, it would have the effect that the entire proceedings would be stayed and the Applicant would be liable for the Respondent's costs of both asserting the counterclaim and defending the original claim. The rules must be interpreted to allow even-handed application of Part 36 to both claim and counterclaim, consistent with the overriding objective.

Parties
Applicant: AF; Respondent: BG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Compromise/settlement Under Part 36
Outcome
Application dismissed; proceedings to continue as there was no binding compromise.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Settlement, Costs Consequences, Counterclaims
Civil Procedure Part 36 Offers Settlement Costs Consequences Counterclaims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AF

Applicant

BG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Compromise/settlement Under Part 36

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offer letter constituted a valid Part 36 offer under the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. 2 Whether the offer related to the whole proceedings including both claim and counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the costs consequences under Part 36 applied to both claim and counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The offer letter was a valid Part 36 offer relating to the whole proceedings, including both the original claim and the proposed counterclaim. Upon acceptance, it would have the effect that the entire proceedings would be stayed and the Applicant would be liable for the Respondent's costs of both asserting the counterclaim and defending the original claim. The rules must be interpreted to allow even-handed application of Part 36 to both claim and counterclaim, consistent with the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; proceedings to continue as there was no binding compromise.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings to be lifted; oral hearing to be relisted.