Husband was justified in offering just a small discount on claim, says High Court
A High Court judge has ordered an ex-wife to pay indemnity costs to her ex-husband after she rejected his high but “sober and realistic” Part 36 offer.
Mr Justice Dexter Dias said Alexander Timokhin’s part 36 offer amounted to 91% of the debt at issue but that did not make it “tokenistic and illusory, but sober and realistic”.
He went on: “The court must be vigilant against very high settlement offers being used strategically, and not being used as a genuine attempt to settle the claim but a device to secure an indemnity award.
“I judge that a percentage settlement offer in the early 90s was justified here given the strength of the claimant’s case.
“He had a rational and reasonable basis to conclude that his prospects were strong and thus a discount of just under 10% was justified.”
Dias J said he rejected the argument that because the decision on recognition and enforcement of the debt was a binary one that a high offer was inappropriate.
“For my part, the more pertinent factor is the strength of the claim. Here Mr Timokhin’s claim was very strong. It was reasonable for him to take that into account at setting a high offer level.”
Delivering judgment in Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 1194 (KB), the judge said the dispute between Anna Timokhina and her ex-husband, both Russian nationals, arose from a contested post-nuptial agreement.
The High Court ruled in favour of Mr Timokhin that the Russian judgments should be recognised and enforced. The debt arising was £417,400. Mr Timohkin made a part 36 offer of £380,000 in May 2025, three months before the trial.
Dias J said: “At trial, the claimant succeeded in full and so has unquestionably beaten the offer. Nevertheless, the defendant submits that it would be unjust for CPR part 36 purposes to make the orders set out at CPR 36.17(4). This is primarily because the offer was not ‘a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings’ (CPR 36.17(5)(e)).
“It is agreed between the parties that the burden is on the unsuccessful party to establish injustice.”
Dias J said he did not accept the defendant’s submission that she raised “important arguments with very real merits”.
He went on: “Some of her arguments had poor prospects of success. Some legal arguments were floated and disappeared with little more. The family law aspect of her case was particularly unconvincing. These were not points that can be labelled ‘entirely reasonable’.
“I add that the complaints that the part 36 offer was underspecified, confusing, equivocal or indistinct are without substance. It is perfectly clear that the offer related to the claim in the King’s Bench before the court. Clarification about scope was provided when asked.”
Mr Timokhin claimed interest of 8% on costs incurred from offer to trial, with Ms Timokhina proposing 1%. Dexter Dias J decided on 6%.
“The defendant had a reasonable and realistic opportunity to accept a genuine settlement offer from the claimant. She failed to take it. Instead, she persisted in a case that was materially flawed in key respects, with some parts of it largely devoid of merit.
“She applied very late in the day to amend her initial defence, a recognition of the limitations of her original position, but the amended defence fared no better and had obvious weaknesses of its own.”
Dias J ordered Ms Timokhina to pay costs on the standard basis until expiry of the ‘relevant period’ for part 36 and after that on the indemnity basis.