Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor

Case management must further the overriding objective and remain proportionate to the value, importance and complexity of the dispute. Lists of issues should identify the high-level issues requiring determination, not every disagreement in the pleadings. Extended disclosure, especially model E under PD 51U, is exceptional and must be justified as reasonable and proportionate. Requests for further information under Part 18 must be strictly necessary to understand the opposing case; they should not require advance evidence, legal argument or an assessment of general damages. Costs budgeting is an objective, phase-by-phase exercise concerned with reasonable and proportionate recoverable costs, not detailed assessment or control of what parties choose to spend.

The claimant brought proceedings against its former managing director concerning alleged bribes involving the provision of vehicles. The first defendant counterclaimed for abuse of process and damages, including reputational, aggravated and exemplary damages. The second defendant had settled.

At a case management conference, the court considered the list of issues, disclosure models, a request for further information concerning the counterclaim, the trial estimate and the parties’ costs budgets. The claimant sought model E disclosure and further particulars of damages. The defendants opposed those applications and challenged the proposed ten-day trial and costs budgeting approach.

1. Case management and issues. The court had to manage the litigation justly and at proportionate cost. A list of issues should identify the high-level key or principal issues for the trial judge. It should not reproduce every disputed pleading point or non-admission. Sub-issues should be grouped under the relevant key issue where a specific finding is required.
2. Disclosure. Under PD 51U, disclosure must focus on key issues and remain reasonable and proportionate. Model E is an exceptional order. Serious allegations may justify some search-based disclosure, but they do not remove the need for focused issues, costs information and proportionality. Model D was potentially appropriate after the parties revised their list. Model E was refused, without preventing a later focused application supported by proper justification.
3. Further information. A Part 18 request must seek information strictly necessary to understand another party’s case. The request concerning reputational, aggravated and exemplary damages was refused. The assessment of such damages was for the trial judge, and the request impermissibly sought advance evidence, legal positions and an assessment of quantum. A later application after disclosure or witness evidence remained possible.
4. Trial estimate. A ten-day trial was disproportionate. The court allowed one day of pre-reading and six sitting days, with up to a two-day break before the final sitting day for closing submissions. The estimate could later be revisited at a pre-trial review if supported by amended budgets and evidence of additional costs.
5. Costs budgeting. Costs budgeting fixes recoverable future costs by phase and is not detailed assessment. The court should avoid granular arithmetic, adopt an objective assessment, recognise a range of reasonable and proportionate figures, and consider proportionality overall and phase by phase. Proportionality may outweigh reasonableness. Incurred costs are ordinarily dealt with on detailed assessment and a budget is not a solicitor-client bill.
6. Orders. The court approved reduced phase budgets, including £100,000 for the claimant’s future witness-statement costs, £18,000 for its pre-trial review, £38,000 for its trial preparation and £200,000 for each party’s trial phase. Potential witness-summons and third-party disclosure applications were left outside the budget under PD 3E 7.9.

This was a first-instance case management conference. The judgment records earlier decisions by Deputy Master Arkush in November 2018 permitting the amended abuse-of-process counterclaim and by Deputy Master Linwood in February 2019 concerning amendment of the claimant’s reply and defence to counterclaim.