Tarajan Overseas Limited - v - Donald Lee Kaye

The court may require a party’s attendance at a case management hearing under CPR 3.1.2(c), including to facilitate settlement or consider consensual ADR. Attendance may be required from a person with knowledge of the dispute and authority to act for the party. The power cannot properly be used to pressure a party into abandoning otherwise lawful proceedings.

A British Virgin Islands company claimed at least £50,000 for defective fitting-out work. The defendant counterclaimed more than £20,000 and asserted that he lacked assets and was unable to work. At a case management conference, the Technology and Construction Court adjourned the matter and ordered the claimant company’s directors to attend, stating that the purpose was to make the claimant reconsider its position.

The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the attendance order was a proper exercise of case management powers, particularly in the context of settlement and ADR.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the attendance order was varied. The order requiring the company’s directors to attend was replaced by an order requiring Paula Horton and/or Aidan Beckford to appear on the further application.
2. Under CPR 3.1.2(c), the court has power, in exercising its case management functions, to order a party to attend.
3. Requiring attendance may properly facilitate settlement where the court considers that the parties should attempt to resolve the dispute. The court may also make an ADR order which suspends proceedings so that the parties can explore settlement with an experienced mediator, provided the order is non-coercive and consensual in substance.
4. An ADR order can ordinarily be made without requiring a party’s attendance. The court must not order attendance in order to put pressure on a party to abandon or drop its proceedings.
5. On the facts, there was a good reason for requiring someone with knowledge of the dispute and authority from the claimant to attend. The substituted order enabled the judge to consider the position in the presence of an informed and authorised representative, while leaving the claimant free to continue if it considered that worthwhile.

Mr Justice Pitchford agreed. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal to the stated extent and substituted an order requiring Paula Horton and/or Aidan Beckford to appear.
• Technology and Construction Court: at a case management conference on 12 October 2001, adjourned the conference and ordered the claimant company’s directors to attend the resumed hearing.