Excel-Eucan Ltd v Source Vagabond System Ltd

Whether proceedings should remain in the shorter trial scheme depends on the particular case. The court should assess the real issues, the extent of disclosure, the need for witness or expert evidence, and whether the trial can be completed within the scheme’s four-day limit, including reading time.

Length or complexity in the statements of case is relevant but not decisive. The court must consider whether the case can realistically be managed within the scheme. Appropriate disclosure remains available, although the usual regime of standard disclosure does not apply. The overriding objective requires proportionate and cost-efficient conduct, but it does not justify restricting procedure where fuller steps are needed to achieve fairness.

At the first case management conference, the defendant applied for proceedings concerning a patent licence, alleged repudiatory breach, patent infringement, and royalty liability to be removed from the shorter trial scheme. The defendant relied on the complexity of the issues, disclosure requirements, witness evidence, expert evidence, and a proposed trial estimate of five or six days.

The claimant opposed removal. The central issue was whether the case could properly be tried within four days, including reading time, while allowing proportionate disclosure and evidence.

1. Application dismissed. The claim was directed to remain in the shorter trial scheme, subject to reconsideration if the issues developed materially.
2. The suitability of the shorter trial scheme must be determined on the facts of the particular case. The court should not become overly influenced by decisions concerning different disputes. The judge considered Cantel v Arc Medical Design [2017] EWHC 1202 materially different and probably more complex, so it did not determine the present application (para [12]).
3. The relevant considerations included the extent of disclosure, the extent of expert evidence, the likely witness evidence, and, most importantly, whether the trial could be contained within the scheme’s maximum estimate of four days including reading time (paras [8]–[10], [16]).
4. The shorter trial scheme did not prevent appropriate disclosure. Although the usual rules concerning Part 31 standard disclosure did not apply, disclosure requests could be tailored to the issues and managed within the scheme (paras [7]–[8], [15]).
5. The length and complexity of the pleadings were relevant, but they did not by themselves make the scheme unsuitable. The court had to examine the practical reality of the dispute, including the evidence and trial estimate (para [10]). The anticipated five witnesses and possible expert evidence did not, on the material before the court, create sufficient complexity to require removal from the scheme (para [16]).
6. The overriding objective required proportionate and cost-efficient case management. That did not mean that a party should be prevented from pursuing litigation where longer or more expensive procedure was necessary to do justice between the parties (para [11]).
7. On the present issues, a four-day trial estimate including reading time was sufficient. The claim therefore remained within the shorter trial scheme (paras [16]–[17]).