Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho

A party seeking an extension of time to comply with a final case-management order must provide a sufficiently strong justification. A voluntary change of solicitors at a late stage is ordinarily not a good reason where it risks disrupting the proceedings. Difficulty in analysing complex loss and causation issues does not excuse inadequate particulars. The party must identify its case in sufficient detail, including how the alleged breaches caused the claimed loss. The court is entitled to refuse further time where delay would prejudice fair trial preparation, disclosure, expert evidence, trial management or the opposing party’s ability to understand the claim. The timing and practical effect of a proposed extension may also be considered, including whether it would effectively create a substantially longer period for compliance.

The claimants brought substantial claims against former employees arising from alleged breaches of employment contracts, breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information. Their pleaded claims left quantum and causation largely unparticularised.

Following requests for further information and previous case-management orders, the court had required proper particulars of the claimed loss and its causal connection with the alleged breaches by 27 March 2012. The claimants sought a further extension to 5 April, relying principally on a proposed voluntary change of solicitors and the difficulty of analysing complex computer systems and loss.

The issue was whether those matters justified extending the final compliance date.

1. The application was dismissed. The court declined to extend the date for providing proper particulars of quantum and causation.
2. Particulars identifying the loss claimed and how it was caused by the alleged breaches were fundamental to a fair trial. The defendants were entitled to know the basis on which many millions of pounds were claimed. Proper particularisation was also necessary to focus disclosure, expert reports and other trial preparation.
3. The claimants had already had about six months to respond to the request for further information and had failed to provide an acceptable response. The court had made a final order and had clearly indicated that a further failure could lead to an unless order.
4. A voluntary change of solicitors at this stage of long-running litigation was not a good reason for extending time. The claimants had chosen the change with knowledge that it was likely to cause delay and disruption.
5. The complexity of linking losses to alleged breaches did not justify leaving the issue unresolved. The claimants had to identify their case in sufficient detail, whether by direct evidence, inference or another legally and causally sufficient basis.
6. The court was entitled to consider the practical effect of extending the deadline to the start of the Easter vacation. In reality, that timing could postpone any application for an unless order by several further weeks. That consequence was unacceptable in the circumstances.

not stated in the judgment.