Hendry & Ors v World Professional Billiards & Snooker Association Ltd

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the trial judge controls case management. Parties cannot safely alter the pleaded issues by agreement without the judge's knowledge and approval. Where a Reply introduces entirely new controversies, a general agreement concerning consequential amendments does not automatically give those matters the status of the Particulars of Claim. The judge may exclude evidence directed to them, particularly during an expedited trial. An appellate court should be especially cautious before interfering with a case-management ruling made while the trial is continuing. The relevant question is whether the decision fell outside the trial judge's broad discretion.

An expedited Chancery Division trial concerned competition-law and restraint-of-trade challenges to rules and conduct governing professional snooker. During the trial, Mr Justice Lloyd excluded evidence concerning journalists' access to communications facilities controlled or operated by the defendant because the issue appeared in the Reply rather than the Particulars of Claim. The claimants sought permission to appeal, arguing that a solicitor's letter showed agreement to treat the Reply as making consequential amendments, that the evidence was relevant, and that the allegations had not been denied. The central issue was whether the judge had wrongly excluded the evidence or acted outside his case-management discretion.

Robert Walker LJ delivered the leading judgment and Henry LJ agreed. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed, with the applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs summarily assessed at £4,500.

1. Case-management control. Under rule 3.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judge is in control of the litigation. Parties cannot always safely agree case-management matters without the judge's knowledge and approval. No judge had directed, expressly or impliedly, that the whole of the Reply should be treated as included in the Particulars of Claim.
2. Effect of the solicitor's letter. The letter of 2 April 2001 was ambiguous. It could sensibly refer to formal consequential amendments arising from changes to the proposed rules, but it did not clearly extend to entirely new controversies, including alleged mismanagement and denial of press facilities.
3. Exclusion of evidence. The evidence concerned allegations introduced in the Reply which had not formed part of the claim as initially pleaded. The judge was entitled to exclude it, notwithstanding his recognition that the conduct might have been relevant to a differently formulated case and notwithstanding the absence of a substantive rejoinder.
4. Appellate restraint. Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the Practice Direction under Part 52 require particular caution when reviewing case-management decisions. That caution had special force because the trial was continuing on an expedited basis, with a real risk that it would not finish within the available sitting days. The ruling was within the ample scope of the judge's discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1127, the expedited application for permission to appeal was dismissed and costs were summarily assessed at £4,500.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Mr Justice Lloyd ruled during the expedited trial that evidence concerning journalists' access to communications facilities was irrelevant and inadmissible because the issue had been raised in the Reply rather than the Particulars of Claim.