KG & Ors v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 783 (10 June 2003)

KG & Ors v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 783 (10 June 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that it retained jurisdiction to make Part 36 orders in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant, despite the sealing of the main order, because the Part 36 issues were ancillary and had not been finally disposed of. The claimants should be joined to the Part 36 appeal and receive similar orders as those who were already parties to it.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 783
Parties
Appellant: DK; Appellant: KR; Appellant: CGE; Appellant: DHM; Appellant: PS; Appellant: RM; Appellant: DJ; Appellant: GOM; 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, Costs and Ancillary Orders Following Main Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant; Part 36 orders to be made in their favour.
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Jurisdiction After Sealing of Order, Costs Orders, Interest on Damages, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Part 36 Offers Jurisdiction After Sealing of Order Costs Orders Interest on Damages Appeal Procedure

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

Appellant

KR

Appellant

CGE

Appellant

DHM

Appellant

PS

Appellant

RM

Appellant

DJ

Appellant

GOM

Appellant

Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation)

First Defendant

Royal and Sun Alliance PLC

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment, Costs and Ancillary Orders Following Main Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make Part 36 orders in favour of claimants not previously party to the Part 36 appeal after the main order was sealed
  2. 2 Whether the fifth claimant, who had not previously obtained a Part 36 order, could now obtain such an order
  3. 3 Whether the court could join additional claimants to the Part 36 appeal and grant them similar relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it retained jurisdiction to make Part 36 orders in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant, despite the sealing of the main order, because the Part 36 issues were ancillary and had not been finally disposed of. The claimants should be joined to the Part 36 appeal and receive similar orders as those who were already parties to it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant; Part 36 orders to be made in their favour.

Orders

  • The three additional claimants are joined to the Part 36 appeal.
  • Part 36 orders similar to those made for other successful claimants are to be made in favour of the three additional claimants and the fifth claimant.