Ultraframe UK Ltd v Fielding & Ors

In complex, conjoined litigation, interlocutory applications may properly be adjourned to the trial where determining them separately would produce little evidential or procedural saving. Relevant considerations include the continuing need to resolve the same factual disputes, the risk of appeals causing issues to proceed on different timetables, anticipated trial preparation, and the avoidance of duplicated costs. The court should weigh any hardship caused by postponement against the efficiency and economy of determining the issues together.

The judgment concerned case management in four related actions listed for conjoined trial. The Liquidator had a summary judgment application, and the Defendants had an application to strike out the Leeds action, both listed for March. The Claimant applied for those applications to be adjourned and determined with the substantive trials, expected to take place in October.

The litigation had a lengthy procedural history, including earlier decisions by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the March interlocutory hearings should proceed separately or be deferred until the conjoined trial.

1. The March applications were adjourned. They were ordered to be determined with the conjoined trials in October.
2. The court exercised its case management powers by assessing which course would be most efficient and least wasteful of costs. Although the applications might determine some issues early, most or all factual disputes relevant to the trial would still need to be resolved. Separate hearings would therefore produce no substantial saving in evidence or disclosure.
3. The possibility of appeals from one or both interlocutory decisions created a real risk that some issues would proceed out of step with the remaining issues. Determining all matters together avoided that procedural difficulty.
4. The Defendants’ principal reason for retaining the March hearing was their proposed Foss v Harbottle argument concerning the Leeds action. In the context of the existing timetable, postponement would cause no significant hardship. That consideration was outweighed by the expected efficiency and economy of a single determination.
5. The anticipated length of the October trial and the necessary pre-reading were unlikely to be materially reduced by separate March hearings. The benefits of retaining the March date therefore did not outweigh the advantages of determining all issues at one time.

The judgment records that earlier preliminary decisions had been considered by the Court of Appeal in December 2003. The present decision reconsidered the appropriate timetable for the interlocutory applications on a de novo case management basis.