Bonhams 1973 Ltd v Lawson & Ors

Appellate courts should be very reluctant to interfere with case-management decisions. Where a party maintains a possible claim to an interest in disputed property, the court may require it to state the basis of that claim so that the issues can be managed and resolved efficiently. A request for inspection does not automatically justify postponing that order, particularly where inspection has uncertain value and no proper application for inspection has been made. Points about the terms and supervision of an inspection raised for the first time on an appeal are ordinarily too late.

Bonhams auctioned a Ferrari for £9.6 million plus buyer’s premium. Mr Zanotti claimed that the car, or part of it, was property stolen from him. He settled an urgent claim against Bonhams for £2 million, but Bonhams later alleged that the settlement had been induced by fraud or economic duress.

At a case management conference, Flaux J declined to enter judgment on admissions or give summary judgment. He ordered Mr Zanotti to serve a statement of case setting out any claim to an interest in the car. Mr Zanotti sought permission to appeal, arguing that inspection of the car should take place first. The central issue was whether the case management order justified appellate intervention.

Permission to appeal was refused. Lord Justice Longmore held that the order requiring Mr Zanotti to identify the basis of any alleged interest in the car was an appropriate case-management decision.

1. The Court of Appeal is, on general principles, most reluctant to interfere with case-management decisions. That approach was supported by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v T and N [2002] EWCA Civ 1964 at [38] and Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd v Fattal [2008] EWCA Civ 427.
2. Mr Zanotti’s earlier position was that he had no interest in the car because either the settlement was valid, or, if it was voidable for fraud, he could not claim an interest. His position changed because he wished to preserve a possible claim based on economic duress. In those circumstances, Flaux J was entitled to require him to state the legal and factual basis of any claim to the car.
3. The benefit of an inspection was very tenuous because it was unclear whether inspection could establish that any part of the car in Southampton was part of the property allegedly stolen from Parma. No application for inspection had been made to the Commercial Court.
4. Questions about who should inspect, whether supervision was required, and whether other parties should participate should have been raised by an application to the trial court. It was too late to ventilate those matters for the first time on the permission application. The case management order was therefore the right order, and it would have been wrong to grant permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 16 July 2015, permission to appeal was refused in [2015] EWCA Civ 1062.
• High Court, Commercial Court: Flaux J made a case-management order on 5 June 2015 requiring Mr Zanotti to serve a statement of case identifying any claim to an interest in the car.