Seals & Anor v Williams

Early Neutral Evaluation may form part of the judicial function in civil proceedings. A judge may express provisional views on specified hypotheses or on the overall impression of the case where the parties request an evaluation, although the judge retains discretion whether to do so. The process does not depend on the parties’ consent as a matter of jurisdiction. CPR 3.1(m) supports case-management orders for this purpose, but the Rules do not themselves create jurisdiction otherwise lacking. Any binding obligation arises from a consent order made after the evaluation, not from the non-binding evaluation itself.

The claimants brought Inheritance Act proceedings against the estate of their late father, of which the defendant was sole executrix and beneficiary. Earlier title litigation and the subsequent inheritance claim had generated substantial acrimony, while mediation had largely stalled. The parties’ legal representatives proposed an Early Neutral Evaluation by a High Court judge to provide a provisional assessment of the legal issues and evidential strengths, followed where appropriate by an agreed consent order. The court had to determine whether it possessed jurisdiction to undertake that process and make the proposed directions.

1. Jurisdiction and judicial function. The expression of provisional views during a hearing is an inherent part of the judicial function and is not dependent on party consent. A hearing specially convened for Early Neutral Evaluation is different in degree, but remains within that function where the parties ask the judge to express provisional views on particular hypotheses or on the judge’s overall impression of the case.
2. Case-management power. In civil proceedings, CPR 3.1(m) provides a procedural basis for taking any other step or making any other order directed to case management and furthering the overriding objective. The Rules cannot supply jurisdiction otherwise lacking, but the expression of provisional views to narrow the dispute and assist settlement is inherent in the judicial function and supports the proper management of proceedings.
3. Limits of the process. The judge is not obliged to conduct an evaluation whenever requested. The proposed directions properly confined the Settlement Judge to non-binding recommendations and short reasons, without purporting to give a provisional judgment. The Settlement Judge would take no further part in the proceedings.
4. Order. What could bind the parties was their consent to a subsequent order, not the result of the Early Neutral Evaluation itself. The court made the agreed order, and welcomed the adoption of such neutral evaluations in the relevant court registries.