Tindall Cobham 1 Ltd & Ors v Adda Hotel

In an urgent commercial dispute suitable for determination on a short issue of lease construction, the court may expedite a summary judgment application where delay risks materially prejudicing the parties. Expedition must remain consistent with the overriding objective and the requirement that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case. The court should consider the available judicial resources, the likely procedural timetable, the nature of the evidence required, and the effect on other litigants. A hearing may be limited to the construction issue where peripheral questions, including consequential relief or related tort claims, can be determined later. Any party resisting expedition should identify genuine evidence showing a real prospect of injustice.

The claimants, freeholders of several hotels, sought expedition of an application for summary judgment concerning the construction of leases. The defendants had assigned the leases to subsidiaries within the Hilton group. The central dispute was whether the assignments were permitted and whether the assignments released existing parent-company guarantees.

The claimants relied on the urgency of their refinancing arrangements. The defendants resisted a hearing within the same week, but could not identify evidence or factual issues requiring a longer preparation period. The court therefore considered whether the lease-construction issue could fairly and efficiently be heard on an expedited basis.

1. Expedition granted. The application for summary judgment was directed to be heard on Thursday, with an estimate of one day and limited to construction of the leases. Peripheral issues, including alleged tortious inducement and consequential relief, were left for a later hearing.
2. Applying the principles summarised in JW Spear & Son Ltd v Zynga Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 1175, the court held that this was an appropriate case for urgent judicial assistance. The dispute was commercially important to both sides, and an earlier hearing could enable any appeal to be resolved months sooner.
3. The overriding objective required the court to balance the claimants’ need for an early determination against fairness to the defendants, the court’s resources, and the position of other litigants. The court had spare judicial capacity during the relevant week, whereas listing the matter later might displace another fixture or require additional judicial resources.
4. A party must receive the fullest and fairest opportunity to present its case. The defendants were given liberty to serve evidence demonstrating a genuine prospect of injustice from the expedited hearing. If such evidence were produced, the court would reconsider the timetable.
5. The material before the court suggested that the issue was one of law and lease construction, capable of determination within a day. The defendants had not identified factual-matrix evidence or other evidence necessary for the hearing. Costs of the day’s application were ordered to be costs in the Part 24 application.