Sandhar & Kang Ltd v Ijaz

Expedition is justified where there is real, objectively viewed urgency. The court should consider whether the applicant has shown good reason, whether expedition would interfere with the administration of justice, whether it would prejudice a party, and whether special factors exist. Commercial certainty and the risk of substantial loss may constitute good reason. Inequality of resources does not itself prevent expedition, provided that a fair trial remains possible within the proposed timetable. The court may impose an expedited timetable while retaining the ability to adjourn the trial if later developments show that fairness cannot be maintained.

The claimant, landlord of commercial premises, sought an expedited trial concerning the validity of a lease and a break notice. The claimant faced a likely obligation to provide vacant possession following the anticipated exercise of an option to purchase the development. The defendant alleged that the lease was a forgery and disputed the associated rider and break clause.

The application raised whether the impending contractual deadline justified expedition, whether expedition would prejudice the defendant’s ability to prepare evidence, and whether the claimant had delayed in making the application.

1. Application granted. The proceedings were ordered to be expedited, subject to further submissions on the precise timetable. The proposed dates were adjusted by approximately one week where relevant.
2. The governing question was whether expedition was justified by real, objectively viewed urgency. The court applied the approach identified in Delta Europe v Makki [2004] EWHC 1631 and endorsed in Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 480.
3. The relevant considerations were: whether there was good reason for expedition; whether expedition would interfere with the proper administration of justice; whether it would prejudice a party; and whether special factors existed. Those factors were taken from WL Gore and Associates GmbH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622.
4. The impending option deadline and the risk of substantial damages if vacant possession could not be provided amounted to good reason. The claimant’s urgency was not treated as self-created because it had no apparent reason, when entering the option, to anticipate a dispute over the break clause.
5. Expedition necessarily affects court listing, but that fact alone cannot justify refusal. Resource inequality is not independently decisive. The critical question is whether, having regard to the resources reasonably available to the defendant, a fair trial can take place within the timetable.
6. The allegations of forgery required disclosure, witness evidence and expert evidence, but the central issue was narrow and the evidential scope appeared confined. Known difficulties did not make a fair trial impossible. If later events showed that the timetable could not be met without prejudice, the defendant could seek an adjournment, following the guidance in WL Gore and Associates GmbH v Geox SpA at paragraph 33.
7. The claimant had not culpably delayed. It acted reasonably in waiting for the defence to clarify that forgery was the substantive case before applying for expedition.