Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd & Anor

Permission to appeal in interlocutory matters is exceptional. A pleading raising limitation as a defence is ordinarily proper, with the issue to be determined at trial. Disclosure is a continuing obligation, but an appellate court will not require the process to be repeated where the first-instance judge was satisfied that it had been properly performed. Amendments and joinder must comply with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 19.5, and may be refused where they fall outside the rule or would imperil the trial date. A costs decision will be disturbed only where the judge was plainly wrong or exceeded the generous ambit of reasonable discretion.

Vedatech Corporation brought contractual and restitutionary claims against Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd. It sought amendments to add quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims against Nihon, and sought to join American and Singapore companies in conspiracy claims. It also challenged orders concerning security for costs, disclosure, cross-examination of overseas witnesses, amendments, consolidation and costs.

The applications arose from orders made by Evans-Lombe J and Hart J in the Chancery Division. The central issues were whether the proposed amendments and joinder were legally available, whether the interlocutory case-management decisions disclosed an arguable appeal, and whether the costs decisions were plainly wrong.

1. Applications dismissed. The application concerning refusal to adjourn the security-for-costs application was academic. Permission was also refused in relation to pleading limitation, cross-examination, disclosure, joinder, consolidation and costs. There was no order for costs.
2. The defendants were entitled to plead limitation under the Limitation Act 1980 as a defence to the quantum meruit claims. Whether limitation succeeded was an issue for trial, so the pleading was proper.
3. Overseas witness statements could not simply be admitted without allowing the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine their makers. If the witnesses could not attend, Vedatech could renew an application for video-link evidence or admission under the hearsay provisions, subject to the defendants’ objections.
4. Disclosure is a continuing process. The first-instance judge was entitled to accept evidence that standard disclosure had been properly undertaken and to rely on the defendants’ continuing professional duty to disclose later-discovered relevant documents.
5. The amendment adding a quantum meruit claim against Nihon was sufficiently protected by the respondents’ assurance that valuation could be assessed by the reasonable cost of the work or by the value of the benefit received, in accordance with Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759. The proposed unjust enrichment claim was not properly recognised in the form pleaded and was refused.
6. The proposed joinder of the American and Singapore companies did not fall within any of the three limbs of rule 19.5. The judge was entitled to refuse joinder and consolidation, particularly because doing so would threaten the fixed trial date and cause substantial prejudice.
7. Costs were within the first-instance judge’s discretion. The Court of Appeal would interfere only if the decision was plainly wrong, meaning outside the generous ambit of reasonable views. The use of two counsel was not disproportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2002] EWCA Civ 357: permission to appeal refused and all applications dismissed.
• Chancery Division: Evans-Lombe J made orders on 21 January 2001; Hart J made orders on 7 and 21 November 2001 concerning amendments, joinder, disclosure, consolidation and costs.