Banco Central De Venezuela v Bank of England & Ors (Rev 1)

Where litigation is suitable for expedition but a pending appeal may affect its future course, the court may direct preparatory steps so that the case is ready to proceed if remitted. Case management may sensibly prioritise issues with a clear procedural timetable and defer more uncertain or potentially unnecessary issues. The court may also require preparatory work on communications with a government department, while postponing final dispatch where later pleadings or appellate developments may affect the questions.

The ruling concerned case management in remitted proceedings involving recognition of the Venezuelan government and related issues. The court considered the effect of pending Supreme Court proceedings on the conduct and sequencing of the remitted case.

The parties addressed expedition, the preparation of a letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the formulation of questions concerning formal and implied recognition, and whether issues concerning STJ decisions and on-the-ground matters should be included in the immediate timetable.

1. Preparatory progress pending appeal. The court considered it appropriate to make practical progress in drafting and, if necessary, finalising a letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and updating the pleadings. This would ensure that the remitted case was ready to be heard if the Supreme Court proceedings resulted in that course.
2. Timing of the government communication. The letter should be developed while the pleadings were formalised, because the pleading exercise might affect the formulation of the questions. Depending on developments, the letter could seek preparation of an answer without requiring it immediately to be sent.
3. Scope of recognition issues. The question concerning Her Majesty’s Government’s recognition should address Mr Guaidó as well as formal recognition. The court considered that the extent to which competing candidates exercised power might be relevant if the issue extended to de facto recognition, although the legal relevance of that matter remained open to argument.
4. Sequencing and triage. The court directed an expedited timetable for effectively express and implied recognition issues. It did not presently include the STJ point, because that issue could prolong the hearing and might prove unnecessary. The court also recognised that the existing issues had sufficient procedural visibility and that an outcome on them might dispose of the litigation.
5. The court ordered expedition and directed the parties to liaise on the timetable, with the possible addition of the on-the-ground issue left open.

The ruling was made in remitted proceedings while related issues were pending before the Supreme Court. The judgment refers to an earlier Court of Appeal judgment and to the possibility that the Supreme Court might determine that further questions should not have been ordered. No citation for those decisions is stated in the judgment.