Stax Claimants v Bank of Nova Scotia Channel Islands Ltd & Ors

In managing extensive group litigation, the court may select representative cases for focused preparation and an initial hearing without staying the remaining claims. The overriding objective requires consideration of the parties’ practical circumstances, including the effect of a lead-case structure on claimants’ after-the-event insurance. Additional claims may be stayed where this protects the trial timetable, avoids disproportionate costs and permits the main liability issues to be determined first. Exceptions may be made where an additional party seeks an early determination, or for applications such as strike out and summary judgment.

This was a further case management conference in numerous claims concerning the Stax Scheme. The court considered which claims should be selected for focused preparation, whether those claims should operate as lead cases, the treatment of the remaining claims and the Additional Claims brought against other parties.

The claimants’ after-the-event insurance created a practical difficulty with staying all non-selected claims. The court therefore had to determine how the litigation could proceed without requiring preparation of 45 actions while protecting the claimants’ insurance position and preserving the fixed trial date.

1. Selection and preparation. A number of cases were selected as representative cases because they covered the principal factual categories, time periods, routes into the scheme, advisers and evidential circumstances. There was no single objectively correct selection. The court would hear the selected cases first.
2. Remaining claims. All actions were to remain listed for the January 2008 trial, but preparation was to focus on the selected cases. Work common to the selected and non-selected claims was to be recorded so that appropriate costs could be apportioned. The non-selected claims were not stayed; their trial timetable would be set after judgment in the selected cases or by further order.
3. Additional Claims. The Additional Claims in the non-selected actions, and generally those in the selected actions, were stayed. This avoided disproportionate expense, reduced the risk of losing the trial date and allowed the main claims to be determined first. The stay did not prevent an Additional Party from applying to strike out or for summary judgment. The Additional Claim in Allan Parker’s action was excluded from the stay because the relevant Additional Parties wished it to proceed, and doing so would not materially lengthen the trial.
4. Further directions. Pleadings were to be completed within the specified periods, including amended Additional Claims in the selected actions. Disclosure was not required absent application. Witness statements were to be exchanged by 28 June 2007 and trial bundles prepared by 31 August 2007. The court declined to make a premature order determining responsibility for future costs applications or to order further information concerning loss and benefits without sufficient material to resolve the disputes.

The judgment records a further case management conference and refers to an earlier judgment in November, but no appellate decision is stated.