Pritpall Singh Gill v Anami Holdings Ltd & Anor

A later judge should not readily depart from an earlier interim case-management decision which has been acted upon and treated as governing the litigation. Although case management is capable of changing as circumstances develop, departure ordinarily requires good justification, usually involving a material change of circumstances. An application made at short notice in the Interim Applications Court, shortly after a pre-trial review at which the point was not raised, will generally provide an additional reason for preserving the existing directions. The trial judge retains renewed case-management powers and may vary earlier directions after becoming fully acquainted with the pleadings, evidence and issues.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning the validity of settlement agreements entered into in 2012 and 2014, together with an underlying dispute concerning alleged fiduciary breaches, misrepresentation and deceit arising from earlier dealings.

The case had been managed on the basis that the settlement issues and the underlying dispute would be tried together. The defendants applied under the relevant parts of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.1, for the forthcoming trial to be confined to the validity of the settlements, with the underlying dispute postponed if the settlements were upheld. The issue was whether the existing case-management directions should be changed shortly before trial.

1. The defendants’ application to divide the forthcoming trial was refused. The existing case-management directions, made by Judge Raeside and acted upon since June 2017, were not altered.
2. A later judge should not depart from an earlier interim decision unless there is good justification, usually involving a change of circumstances. Case management may be viewed as a living process, but that does not justify readily making directions inconsistent with earlier decisions which have governed the parties’ preparation.
3. The application had been made under pressure of time in the Interim Applications Court, shortly after a pre-trial review at which the proposed division of the trial had not been raised. Those circumstances reinforced the conclusion that the earlier direction should prevail.
4. The refusal did not determine how the trial must ultimately be conducted. The trial judge would have special advantages, including knowledge of the pleadings, witness statements, trial bundle and openings, and would retain the power to vary the earlier case-management directions if appropriate. Nothing in the decision was to constrain that power.
5. The costs of the defendants’ application notice dated 5 June 2018 were ordered to be paid to the claimant as a litigant in person. Costs of the expert-evidence application were reserved to the trial judge. A paper application for pro bono costs was permitted.

First-instance case-management decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.