Addison & Ors v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & Anor

In exercising case-management powers, the court must further the overriding objective by dealing with proceedings justly and at proportionate cost. That requires balancing the parties’ interests, compliance with procedural orders, the risk of wasted costs, the adequacy of the trial listing and the proper allocation of scarce court resources.

Where procedural failures and unresolved applications make a fair trial on the listed date doubtful, the court may vacate the trial and impose conditions, including forfeiture of a trial fee and payment of a further fee on relisting. Parties must assist the court actively and should promptly seek appropriate directions where an application may affect the trial timetable.

The claimants sought approximately £1.6 million by way of restitution and damages for alleged breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The proceedings had been issued against two named defendants, but the particulars of claim were brought by only three claimants against a different company.

A specific-disclosure application and related expert-evidence issues remained unresolved shortly before a four-day trial. Witness statements had not been exchanged, the identity of the parties required regularisation, and the available trial time appeared inadequate. The court therefore considered whether the listed trial should proceed, be vacated immediately or be deferred pending further case-management steps.

1. The informal application to vacate the trial was granted. The court held that the overriding objective required the trial listed for 8 February 2016 to be vacated because unresolved disclosure issues, overdue witness statements, uncertainty over the parties and concerns about the adequacy of the trial estimate created a substantial risk that the case could not be tried fairly and proportionately.
2. The court applied the overriding objective in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including the need to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, enforce compliance with rules and orders, and allot an appropriate share of court resources. Although the court was concerned that vacating the trial might waste scarce judicial resources, that consideration did not outweigh the requirements of a fair and properly prepared trial.
3. The parties had failed to comply with their duty under CPR 1.3 to help the court further the overriding objective. In particular, they had not taken adequate steps to expedite the specific-disclosure application or to place potentially consequential applications before an appropriate specialist judge.
4. The existing trial date was vacated pursuant to CPR 3.1 (3) (a), on condition that the trial fee already paid would be forfeited and that a further trial fee would be payable on relisting. The trial was not to be relisted until witness statements had been exchanged. Availability dates and a revised time estimate were then to be filed.
5. The defendant’s application was directed to be listed before District Judge Obodai when judgment on the specific-disclosure application was handed down. All further case directions were to be given at that hearing. There was no order as to the costs of or occasioned by the pre-trial review, and the proceedings would be struck out unless the claimants applied by 27 January 2016 to amend or regularise the parties.