The Rangers Football Club Plc v Collyer Bristow LLP & Anor

An application for expedition requires consideration of four matters: whether good reason for expedition is shown, whether expedition would be consistent with the good administration of justice, whether it would prejudice other parties, and whether special factors exist. Expedition may be justified where an early judgment is important to a company’s financial stability, but the timetable must remain realistically achievable and proportionate. Closely connected proprietary and personal claims should generally be tried together where separate trials would duplicate factual investigation and cause inefficiency. Specific disclosure should not ordinarily be ordered before standard disclosure, particularly where the real dispute concerns inspection, privilege or confidentiality, or where the issues remain undefined.

The joint administrators of The Rangers Football Club Plc applied for expedition of competing proprietary claims to a fund held by Collyer Bristow LLP and related claims, including conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and breach of trust. The application followed earlier directions for an expedited trial of the proprietary claims, after which the wider claims were commenced and directed to be case-managed with them. The administrators sought a two-week trial between 2 and 30 July 2012, together with directions for specific disclosure.

The court had to determine whether the claims should be tried together, whether the degree of expedition sought was justified without unfair prejudice, and whether specific disclosure should be ordered before the issues and standard disclosure had been clarified.

1. Expedition. Applying the principles summarised in WL Gore & Associates v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622, the court considered: whether good reason for expedition had been shown; whether expedition would be contrary to the good administration of justice; prejudice to other parties; and any special factors.
2. Good reason existed for an expedited trial because the administrators needed to place the Club on a stable financial footing and an early judgment could assist a company voluntary arrangement or sale as a going concern. The evidence did not show that a July judgment was critical, however. A trial in October would provide substantially the same practical benefit.
3. All the claims should be tried together. The proprietary, breach of trust and wider claims arose from closely connected facts, including the alleged dealings and states of mind of the principal individuals. Separate trials would be inefficient and contrary to the good administration of justice.
4. The July timetable was bordering on unachievable. It allowed inadequate time for disclosure, witness statements and expert evidence, and did not accommodate uncertainty concerning a central witness, privilege asserted by Group, consultation with insurers, or forensic accounting evidence. The trial was therefore expedited to a window commencing 1 October and ending 31 October 2012.
5. Specific disclosure was refused at that stage. It was premature before standard disclosure, and the principal issues appeared likely to concern inspection, privilege and confidentiality. The scope of disclosable documents could not properly be determined before defences had been served. A later application remained available.
6. The administrators’ costs of the conceded title-deeds application were summarily assessed at £11,000.