Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd & Anor v Louis Hotels SA

A judge may amend or reverse a decision before the resulting order is drawn up and sealed. The power is governed by the overriding objective and is not confined to exceptional circumstances. A foreign judgment on an application for interim protective relief does not prevent a court with jurisdiction over the substantive claim from determining liability or granting appropriate relief. Recognition gives the foreign judgment no wider effect than it has in its state of origin. Summary judgment is substantive and is distinct from interim relief. An interim payment must remain a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment, assessed on the evidence available when the order is made.

The claimants, companies in the Thomas Cook group, obtained summary judgment on liability and an interim payment of £1 million against the defendant. Before the judgment was formally handed down, the defendant asked the court to reconsider it. The application relied on an intervening Greek decision refusing protective relief, newly produced invoices concerning financial loss, and concerns about causation at the assessment of damages.

The central issues were whether the Greek decision had a recognised effect preventing summary judgment or an interim payment, whether the invoices undermined the earlier orders, and whether the judgment required clarification concerning causation and future costs evidence.

1. Reconsideration. The principles stated in Re L and Another (children) [2013] 1 WLR 634 apply where a draft judgment has been circulated but not formally handed down. The power to amend or reverse the decision is governed by the overriding objective and is not limited to exceptional circumstances. No reconsideration was required on the facts.
2. Effect of the Greek decision. Under Chapter III of Brussels I, a Member State may grant provisional protective measures even where another Member State has jurisdiction over the substance. Recognition gives a foreign judgment the effects it has in its state of origin, but no wider effects, as explained in Hoffman v Krieg (case 145/86) [1988] ECR 662, Barrett v Universal-Island Records et al [2006] EMLR 21 and Boss Group Ltd v Boss France SA [1997] 1 WLR 35. The Greek order concerned interim relief and did not determine the substantive contractual claim. It therefore did not bar summary judgment in England.
3. Interim payment. Although the interim-payment application was itself an application for interim relief, it was based on a different exercise from the Greek freezing-order application. The court had granted judgment for damages to be assessed and was required by CPR 25.7(4) to ensure that the payment was no more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment. The evidence justified £1 million, but not the larger sum sought by the claimants.
4. Quantum and causation. The invoices did not undermine the finding of breach, although they raised issues for assessment of damages. The defendant remained entitled to raise relevant causation arguments, but the assessment had to apply the wide indemnity in clause 36 of the holiday contract. The proposed unrestricted expert examination of every legal-cost item was disproportionate; discrete disputes could be addressed after exchange of schedules.

The judgment was a supplemental first-instance judgment concerning reconsideration of an earlier summary judgment decision. No appellate history is stated.