Family Mosaic Home Ownership Ltd v Peer Real Estate Ltd

The court has power to transfer an existing case into or out of the Shorter Trials Scheme. That power arises both from the overriding objective and the general case-management power in CPR r3.1(2)(m), and implicitly from Practice Direction 51N itself. A case may be transferred where it falls within the scheme, is suitable for its controlled procedure and transfer accords with the overriding objective, including the interests of other court users. In the Chancery Division, “business case” is construed broadly and includes commercial property disputes. Consent is relevant but does not remove the court’s duty to consider suitability and the administration of justice.

The claimant sought specific performance of an agreement under which the defendant was said to have agreed to sell a London property for £2.75 million. The claimant relied on waiver, estoppel, detrimental reliance and unconscionability. The defendant contended that the agreement had terminated and counterclaimed for a declaration.

Both parties consented to transfer the pending Chancery Division action into the newly established Shorter Trials Scheme. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to transfer an existing case, whether the dispute fell within the scheme, whether transfer was appropriate, and what procedure should follow.

1. Power to transfer. An existing case may be transferred into or out of the Shorter Trials Scheme. CPR r1.19(1) requires cases to be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost, including saving expense, adopting proportionate procedures and allotting an appropriate share of court resources. CPR r3.1(2)(m) gives the court power to take any step or make any order for case management and to further the overriding objective. Transfer into the scheme can therefore be ordered under that provision.
2. The same conclusion follows from construing Practice Direction 51N as a whole. Its provisions contemplate cases being transferred into and out of the schemes. Paragraph 1.3 also gives the Practice Direction precedence over conflicting rules or practice directions for the purposes of the pilot. Transfer does not move the case from the division in which it was commenced.
3. Scope and suitability. In the Chancery Division, “business case” has a broad meaning. It contrasts with purely private, non-commercial matters. A commercial property claim concerning the sale of property was within the scheme. Estoppel and unconscionability did not themselves make the case unsuitable. The relevant exclusions were not engaged because there was no fraud or dishonesty, extensive disclosure or evidence was not anticipated, and there was no problematic multiplicity of issues or parties.
4. Overriding objective. Even where transfer is by consent, the court must consider whether it is appropriate, having regard to the administration of justice generally and the effect on other court users. This case was suitable for transfer.
5. Procedure. The application had to be heard by a judge. The case would be allocated to a docketed judge, with a case management conference arranged and the trial and pre-trial review dates fixed in accordance with the scheme. Existing statements of case need not be amended merely because of the transfer. The case was transferred into the Shorter Trials Scheme.