HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Singh

Where witness statements are required by an agreed case-management order, a party should comply unless a proper application justifies variation. The existence of related foreign or domestic proceedings does not, without more, justify delaying preparation of the action or staying it. A stay or order linking proceedings should be sought on proper notice to all affected parties, supported by evidence and submissions identifying the common issues and the relevant timetables. The court may make an unless order requiring exchange by a specified date, with failure ordinarily resulting in strike-out of the claim.

The claimant brought a libel claim arising from an article published in the Sikh Times. At a case management conference before Master Fontaine, the parties agreed an order requiring exchange of factual witness statements by 29 January 2010.

The claimant sought further time because judgment was expected in related Indian proceedings concerning his status, and applied for a stay pending that judgment. The defendant applied for an unless order requiring exchange. The court also considered the existence of two related proceedings, including a further libel claim and Chancery proceedings.

1. The defendant’s application for an unless order was granted and the claimant’s application for a stay was refused. The claimant was required to exchange witness statements by 22 February 2010. The remaining timetable was moved forward by three days, including exchange of expert reports by 1 March 2010.
2. The claimant had given no sufficient reason why exchange should await the outcome of the Indian appeal. The issue had not been raised at the earlier case management conference, and the court could not see how the Indian proceedings affected the progress of this libel action.
3. The existence of related proceedings did not justify a stay on the material before the court. If the claimant wished to seek an order connecting the proceedings, the application had to be made on notice to all parties in the relevant proceedings, supported by a proper application and skeleton argument identifying the alleged common ground and addressing the procedural implications.
4. The unless order operated in the usual way: failure to exchange the statements by the specified date would result in strike-out of the claim. The defendant was awarded his costs of both applications, summarily assessed at £3,304.69, payable within fourteen days.

This was a first-instance case-management decision. The judgment records that Master Fontaine had earlier ordered exchange of factual witness statements by 29 January 2010 at a case management conference on 18 August 2009.