Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP & Ors

When deciding whether to order a joint trial under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 3.1(2)(h), the court must further the overriding objective and conduct a fact-sensitive assessment. Relevant considerations include the nature and impact of delay, factual and legal overlap, common evidence, the risk of inconsistent judgments, possible confusion or prejudice, costs and court resources, and the scope for mitigation by case management. Delay is important but has no automatic priority over overlap. A joint trial is appropriate where the claims are closely connected and the overall balance makes a single trial fairer, more efficient and proportionate.

The court considered a joint case management conference concerning two claims brought by individuals detained in Ras Al Khaimah against Dechert LLP and current or former partners. The claims alleged serious wrongdoing under UAE law arising from the defendants’ work on an investigation into alleged fraud and misappropriation. The principal issue was whether the claims should be tried jointly or sequentially. The claimants opposed a joint trial, principally because it would delay the first claimant’s trial. The defendants relied on the substantial factual, legal, evidential and documentary overlap, the risk of inconsistent findings, and costs and resource savings.

1. Discretion and governing considerations. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 3.1(2)(h), the court may try two or more claims on the same occasion. The discretion must further the overriding objective, including efficient case management under r 1.4(l). The exercise is fact-sensitive and requires a fair assessment of the interests of all parties and the efficient use of court resources.
2. Balancing exercise. The court identified the relevant considerations as the nature and impact of delay; the degree of factual and legal overlap; common witnesses, experts and documents; the risk of confusion or prejudice; the risk of inconsistent factual or legal judgments; costs and court resources; and the extent to which case management could mitigate those concerns. Delay was an important factor, particularly given the first claimant’s detention, but was not automatically of overriding importance. Its weight had to be assessed against the degree and consequences of overlap.
3. Application. The claims arose from a common investigation, involved overlapping defendants and witnesses, and relied extensively on each claimant’s allegations. They raised significant common factual and legal issues, although each claim also contained distinct issues and could succeed or fail independently. A judge conducting a joint trial could guard against unfair confusion, while separate trials carried a distinct risk of inconsistent findings because the evidence might differ.
4. Outcome. The likely savings in costs, hearing time and judicial resources were significant. The claimants’ preference for separate trials carried limited weight in the circumstances. The overriding objective therefore required a joint trial. The Letter of Request was to be amended so that it addressed evidence from both claimants, and consequential directions were to be agreed or resolved by written submissions or a short hearing.

The judgment records an earlier case management conference before Master Dagnall, followed by an order listing the joint case management conference before Mr Justice Murray. No appeal from an earlier decision is described.