Sprint Electric Ltd v Buyer's Dream Ltd & Anor

Amendments to pleadings in the Shorter Trial Scheme are governed by the court’s case-management discretion and the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include the explanation for delay, the effect on the trial timetable, any need for adjournment, and whether the proposed case is arguable.

The Shorter Trial Scheme is intended to keep disputes within defined limits and focus on major issues. A party cannot use an early trial date and then expand the issues so that the trial exceeds the allotted time. Under PD 57AB para 2.50, which reflects the IPEC approach, submitting additional material after the case management conference is subject to a substantial hurdle and will generally require exceptional circumstances.

The claimant sought damages following an earlier judgment that the defendants had wrongfully withheld source code. The present proceedings concerned an inquiry into damages under successive contracts and the second defendant’s directors’ duties.

After evidence had been exchanged and a five-day trial had been listed under the Shorter Trial Scheme, the defendants applied to amend their Points of Defence. The proposed amendments raised a new case that a limitation or exclusion clause in the 2015 contract restricted liability. The claimant opposed the application on grounds including delay, contractual construction and the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

The central issues were whether the amendments should be permitted under the overriding objective and whether the Shorter Trial Scheme’s restrictions on additional material after the case management conference were satisfied.

1. Application dismissed. Uncontentious tidying amendments were allowed, but the substantive amendments were refused.
2. The court accepted, for the defendants’ benefit, that the amendment discretion should be approached by reference to the overriding objective. Relevant factors included the unexplained delay, the impact of the new issues on the trial timetable, the possible need for an adjournment, and whether the proposed arguments were arguable.
3. The delay was unexplained. The proposed case concerned a limitation clause found only in the 2015 contract, while much of the source code appeared to have been created under earlier contractual arrangements. The issues concerning retrospective effect, the possible benefit of the clause to the second defendant, repudiatory breach and the Unfair Contract Terms Act would require substantial factual and legal examination.
4. The proposed case was not a short or confined point of construction. Allowing it would take the trial beyond its allotted period and probably require an adjournment of about a year. That would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Shorter Trial Scheme and unfair to other litigants.
5. The court also applied PD 57AB para 2.50. The provision is materially equivalent to the IPEC rule in CPR r 62.23(2). Following Redd v Red Legal [2012] EWPCC 50, the provision creates a substantial hurdle where a party seeks to submit material beyond that ordered at the case management conference. The case management conference is a central part of the streamlined procedure and the application should first be tested against the exceptional-circumstances requirement.
6. The amendments would inevitably require additional material beyond that directed at the case management conference. The defendants did not satisfy the test in para 2.50 on any view.

The judgment records that an earlier trial before Mr Richard Spearman QC found that the defendants had wrongfully withheld the source code and rejected the first defendant’s copyright counterclaim: [2018] EWHC 1924 (Ch). The present judgment concerned the subsequent damages inquiry and the defendants’ amendment application.