Barons Finance Ltd & Ors v Numerous Defendants

The High Court may use its case-management and inherent powers to consolidate and control related proceedings where fragmented litigation creates a real risk of injustice, particularly for vulnerable and unrepresented defendants. It may require claims within a defined category to be brought in one court, transfer existing claims, and strike out claims where a party persistently disobeys case-management orders. Such measures must remain directed to the proper management and determination of litigation, with procedural fairness preserved through notice and an opportunity to be heard. A company’s right to representation by a non-lawyer is discretionary and may be refused where the proposed representative’s conduct gives rise to serious concerns about integrity and candour. Costs may be made a condition of continuing proceedings where the claimant’s conduct has caused serious procedural injustice.

This was a first-instance case-management judgment concerning a coordinated group of loan and possession claims brought by Barons Finance Ltd and associated companies against numerous defendants. The claims had arisen in county courts and some had been transferred to the London Mercantile Court. The court considered the liquidation of one claimant, alleged assignments of its loan portfolio, repeated failures to comply with orders, enforcement activity in other courts, and the vulnerability of many borrowers.

The central issues were whether the court should require all related proceedings to be brought or transferred to the London Mercantile Court, whether unnotified claims should be struck out, and what protective and case-management orders were justified.

1. Case management and transfer. The court ordered that proceedings arising out of, or relating in any way to, the relevant loans or secured properties be brought in or transferred to the London Mercantile Court. Section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 permitted transfer of existing county-court proceedings, while the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction supported control of future proceedings. The overriding objective in CPR 1 strongly favoured keeping the cases together.
2. Sanction for non-compliance. The claimants had repeatedly failed to comply with orders, including an order requiring disclosure of all relevant proceedings. The court therefore directed that claims not notified by 28 February 2014 would be transferred and struck out, and that future claims issued elsewhere would be transferred and struck out. Any application for relief was to be made in the High Court.
3. Protection of defendants. The fragmented proceedings, alleged assignments and enforcement steps created a real risk that vulnerable borrowers would lose homes or incur expense without knowing of available defences. The court ordered Barons Finance 1 Ltd and Reddy Corporation Ltd to pay £2,652.76 into court or to the Ogunleyes as a condition of continuing their claim, without prejudice to possible claims for damages or costs against the companies and Mr Gopee.
4. Representation and procedural fairness. A company ordinarily required representation by a legal adviser with a right of audience, although the court could relax that rule. The court declined at that stage to prevent Mr Gopee from representing the claimant because the defendants then had counsel and no other party objected. Applications should ordinarily be on notice, supported by evidence, and allow the opposing party time to respond.
5. Other orders. The court found that the assignment relied on in the Manyo-Plange matter was invalid and ineffective on the evidence before it, and granted an injunction in principle. The judgment also recorded that the defendants’ applications to challenge old judgments could properly receive relief where exceptional circumstances outweighed finality concerns, including serious apparent defects in the original lending and enforcement process.

First-instance case-management judgment. The judgment refers to the earlier decision in Barons Finance and Reddy Corporation v Makanju, [2013] EWHC 153 (QB), concerning permission to appeal and subsequent appeal directions, but that decision formed part of the same litigation.