Walsh & Ors v Greystone Financial Services Ltd

Applications to join related claims for a single trial should be determined by balancing the convenience and saving of court resources against the costs, delay and prejudice caused to the parties. Similar factual backgrounds and common legal issues do not necessarily justify a joint trial where each claim raises free-standing issues requiring individual assessment.

The court may instead preserve efficiency by directing common legal issues to be determined as preliminary issues, by managing the claims together, and by arranging for the same judge to hear them. The overriding objective includes saving cost and ensuring a level playing field between the parties.

Three claimants brought separate negligence and deceit claims against Greystone arising from investments in film schemes and advice concerning tax eligibility and HMRC enquiries. The claims involved overlapping factual backgrounds, allegations concerning a ten-hour participation rule, alleged false diaries, and common issues including ex turpi causa and vicarious responsibility.

Greystone applied for the three actions to be heard together, arguing that a single trial would save court time and allow the evidence of each claimant to be assessed in the context of the others. The claimants opposed joinder, relying on the individual nature of the pleaded issues, increased costs, delay, and particular prejudice to Mr Walsh from postponing an imminent trial while facing a substantial tax demand and possible bankruptcy.

1. The applications were dismissed. The claims were not ordered to be heard at a single trial.
2. The court recognised that a joint trial would save court time and reduce Greystone’s aggregate costs. Those advantages were outweighed by the substantial additional cost and disadvantage that a longer joint trial would impose on each privately funded claimant. The overriding objective was consistent with separate trials because saving costs and maintaining a level playing field were important considerations.
3. Each claim involved free-standing pleaded allegations and defences. In particular, the pleaded knowledge issues did not depend on concert, conspiracy, or knowledge passing between the claimants. The claims therefore did not stand or fall together and could properly proceed separately.
4. A separate trial would not prevent Greystone from cross-examining each claimant about relationships, meetings, shared documents, or knowledge of the other claimants’ conduct. The trial judge could still evaluate each claim in the wider factual matrix.
5. The case for separate treatment was especially strong in Mr Walsh’s claim. His case was ready for trial, and postponement carried a serious risk because he faced an immediate tax demand of about £750,000 and a threat of bankruptcy. He should not be exposed to that risk principally for Greystone’s benefit.
6. Efficiency could be achieved by identifying common legal issues, particularly ex turpi causa and vicarious responsibility, at a pre-trial review and determining them as preliminary issues alongside Mr Walsh’s trial. All three claims were also to be managed by the same Master and, if possible, tried by the same judge.