Family Law - High Offers

The case of Timokhin v Timokhina concerned a dispute between former spouses over the recognition and enforcement in England of two Russian court judgments relating to a post-nuptial agreement. The claimant sought enforcement of judgments worth approximately £417,000.

The Part 36 Offer

Before trial, the claimant made a Part 36 settlement offer that represented only a 9% reduction from the full value of his claim. The defendant rejected the offer.

The matter proceeded to trial, where the court found entirely in favour of the claimant and awarded the full amount claimed.

Key Issue

The defendant argued that the claimant should not receive the usual Part 36 costs benefits because the offer was so close to the full value of the claim that it was not a genuine attempt to settle, but rather a tactical attempt to secure enhanced costs consequences.

Court's Decision

The court rejected the defendant's argument.  Mr Justice Dias held that while courts should be alert to the possibility of parties using very high Part 36 offers strategically, a high offer can still be a genuine settlement proposal where the claimant has a particularly strong case.

The judge found that:

• The claimant's claim had strong merits.
• The settlement offer was realistic and commercially sensible.
• The offer was clear and unambiguous.
• The defendant had a genuine opportunity to settle the dispute but chose not to do so.
• Significant parts of the defendant's case had little or no merit.

Costs Consequences

As the claimant achieved a judgment at least as advantageous as his Part 36 offer, the court awarded:

• Indemnity costs from the expiry of the Part 36 acceptance period; and
• The usual enhanced Part 36 benefits.

Significance

The decision confirms that a Part 36 offer does not need to involve a substantial discount to be a genuine attempt to settle. Where a claimant has a strong case, an offer close to the full value of the claim may still attract the favourable costs consequences available under Part 36 if it is rejected and the claimant subsequently succeeds at trial.

The judgment is consistent with earlier authorities, including Huck v Robson and Jockey Club Racecourse Ltd v Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd, where similarly high settlement offers were held to be valid Part 36 offers attracting indemnity costs consequences.

For family law advice, please contact Safeena Tufail at s.tufail@hewetts.co.uk.

Published on 10/06/2026