CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company

An expedited trial is a discretionary case-management order. The applicant must establish objective urgency: a genuine need for the issues to be decided before the ordinary trial date. The court must also consider the disruption caused to other litigants and the interests of both parties. Delay in seeking expedition is relevant but not necessarily decisive, while the respondent’s opposition is relevant chiefly where it demonstrates real prejudice or explains why expedition is inappropriate. Urgency may exist where an answer is needed by a future date, even if an immediate hearing is unnecessary. The timetable should be the least unjust to all interests concerned. Declaratory relief does not justify expedition merely because a party wishes to obtain certainty, particularly where damages provide an adequate remedy and the declarations may not finally resolve the dispute.

CPC and Qatari Diar were parties to a sale and purchase agreement concerning interests in a joint venture developing the former Chelsea Barracks site. Deferred consideration depended substantially on the planning permission obtained and the agreement regulated variations, withdrawal and replacement planning applications.

After the original planning application was withdrawn, CPC commenced proceedings seeking declarations concerning the validity of the withdrawal, the existence of a deemed refusal, the planning consultant’s recommendation, alleged breaches of the agreement and the consequences for any replacement application. CPC applied for an expedited trial, arguing that an early decision was necessary to protect its contractual position. Qatari Diar opposed expedition, contending that any loss could be compensated by debt or damages and that the issues might never require determination.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused to order an expedited trial of CPC’s claims for declarations.
2. The power to order expedition was a judicial discretion. The general principle under the CPR was that cases should be brought to court as soon as reasonably possible consistently with the overriding objective. The court also had to consider the requirements of other litigants and the disruption caused by giving one case priority. The principles stated in Wembley National Stadium v Wembley, unreported, CA, 28 November 2000, Daltel v Makki [2004] EWHC 1631 (Ch), Law Debenture Trust v Elektrim [2008] EWHC 2187 (Ch) and Unilever plc v Chefaro Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 243 were applied.
3. The applicant had to establish objective urgency. This could exist where a decision was required before a future date, without requiring the most stringent timetable. The timetable should be resolved in the way least unjust to all interests concerned.
4. CPC had arguable claims that the contractual conditions for withdrawal had not been satisfied and that the agreement might restrict a replacement application. However, an expedited trial was not necessary. The declarations might not finally resolve the dispute, the planning position remained developing, and damages appeared capable of providing an adequate remedy. The possibility that the issues might never require determination also weighed against expedition.
5. There had been no relevant delay by CPC, but that did not overcome the absence of objective urgency. The declarations concerning the reasons for any deemed refusal were particularly unsuitable for an expedited abstract determination because their practical resolution depended on the details of the replacement application.