Richardson v Glencore UK Ltd & Ors

In the Commercial Court, an oral case management conference is the general rule. A paper case management conference is appropriate only in rare and exceptional cases where the issues are straightforward and the cost of an oral hearing cannot be justified. Both conditions must be satisfied. Requests to vacate a listed hearing must be made in accordance with the Commercial Court Guide and within the specified time. Late or non-compliant requests may lead to sanctions, including adverse costs orders. The court may also require properly prepared statements of case and a workable list of issues, particularly where expert evidence or foreign-law issues are proposed.

This was the first case management conference in a complex claim concerning the employment rights and benefit arrangements of a senior commodities trader. The parties had agreed directions and sought, at short notice, confirmation that attendance at the listed hearing was unnecessary. Their request was out of time and was not accompanied by the confirmations required by the Commercial Court Guide.

The proposed list of issues and statements of case were also unsatisfactory. The court therefore considered the appropriate mode of case management, the parties’ preparation, the need for fresh statements of case, and the consequences of non-compliance with the applicable procedures.

1. The court held that an oral case management conference is the general rule in the Commercial Court. The purpose is to enable the judge to examine the case constructively, give practical directions, and ensure efficient and fair preparation for trial.
2. A paper case management conference is reserved for rare and exceptional cases. The issues must be straightforward, and the costs of an oral hearing must be incapable of justification. Both requirements must be met.
3. A request for a paper hearing must be made only after careful consideration of the matters identified in section D8.3 of the Commercial Court Guide. The required documents must be lodged by noon on the Tuesday of the week of a Friday hearing, being two clear working days beforehand. The required advocate confirmations must also be provided.
4. The late request in this case was inappropriate. The claim was complex, involved proposed expert evidence concerning Swiss law, and had not been prepared in accordance with the Guide. Parties making such requests cannot assume that the court will accommodate them and may face sanctions under the overriding objective in CPR 1.
5. The agreed list of issues failed to identify important questions, including the governing-law issues and the proposed issues of Swiss law. Fresh particulars of claim and fresh statements of case were directed. The pleadings were to identify the contractual terms relied upon, the alleged breaches, and the consequential relief claimed.
6. The court ordered an urgent transcript of the judgment, with its costs divided equally between the claimant, the first and fourth defendants, and the third defendant. The court emphasised that a more severe costs order might be made in future cases.