Natas Group Ltd v Styles & Wood Ltd

Parties must comply with court-ordered timetables for trial preparation. A party’s limited litigation resources, including arrangements involving conditional fees or after-the-event insurance, do not ordinarily excuse delay. Trial bundles must be prepared and served sufficiently early to allow the parties, witnesses, advocates and court to prepare. Proposed amendments must be put into draft pleading form and, where consent is absent, supported by an application for permission. Witness statements must be served as soon as practicable, rather than being described only in correspondence.

The claimant, an asbestos-removal subcontractor in administration, brought a claim exceeding £3 million against the defendant main contractor. The claim was listed for a six-day trial. Following earlier orders for security for costs, a pre-trial review fixed dates for the trial bundles, supplemental witness statements and any amended particulars of claim.

The claimant missed those deadlines. At a further case management hearing, it relied on limited resources, equipment failure and staff illness, and proposed a revised timetable. The central issue was how the court should manage the case so that the defendant could know the case it had to meet and the forthcoming trial could proceed fairly.

1. Case management directions. The claimant had fallen substantially behind an already belated timetable. The court would make final directions appropriate to the requirements of the trial, with the agreed directions recorded in the order to be drawn up by counsel.
2. Trial bundles. Responsibility for preparing the bundles generally lies with the claimant. They must be finalised and served sufficiently early to enable counsel to prepare cross-examination and opening submissions, solicitors to prepare witnesses, the defendant to add material where appropriate, and the judge to undertake pre-reading.
3. Amendments. A claimant wishing to alter its case should produce a draft amended pleading in good time before trial. Correspondence indicating the substance of possible amendments is ordinarily insufficient. Where the defendant does not consent, an application for permission to amend must be issued.
4. Witness statements. Although late statements occur, evidence on which a party intends to rely should be served as soon as practicable. Broad indications in correspondence do not adequately identify the evidence, particularly where the opposing advocate must cross-examine the witnesses first.
5. Resources. Lack of resources was not an acceptable explanation for the delays. Solicitors acting under a conditional fee arrangement, with after-the-event insurance, remained professionally bound to deploy the resources necessary to conduct the litigation efficiently and fairly, including additional copying facilities, solicitors or counsel where required.

First-instance case management decision. The judgment records earlier hearings concerning security for costs and a pre-trial review on 17 February 2012.