Docklock Ltd v C Christo & Co Ltd

An order pronounced by a court may be reconsidered before sealing, but the jurisdiction is rare and does not permit a second trial or a general re-argument. The applicant must first show a reasonably arguable and sufficiently compelling reason, such as a material mistake, fundamental misapprehension, or important evidence or law overlooked. If that threshold is met, the court exercises an open-ended discretion under the overriding objective. Finality, proportionality, the progress of the dispute and reliance on the judgment are relevant. Fresh evidence will not ordinarily justify reconsideration where it could have been obtained earlier, the applicant made a tactical choice at trial, or resolving it would require a further trial.

Docklock applied to revisit the occupation charge set off against professional fees awarded to C Christo & Co Ltd in an account and inquiry arising from divorce-related arrangements. The original judgment valued the premises at £79,000 per annum and fixed the occupation charge accordingly. Docklock relied on alleged errors in the treatment of expert valuation evidence, fresh evidence concerning subletting and building regulations, and an alleged dishonest case by the defendant.

The application required the court to decide whether the reconsideration jurisdiction applied, whether Docklock had shown a compelling reason to reopen the valuation issue, and whether the discretion should nevertheless be exercised.

1. Application dismissed. The court was bound by AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2021] 1 WLR 1506, which provided useful guidance on reconsideration before an order was sealed.

2. The jurisdiction is founded on the overriding objective in CPR r 1.1. It is not governed by an “exceptional circumstances” test. The court must first ask whether there is a reasonably arguable and sufficiently compelling basis for reconsideration. If so, it must then decide, as a matter of discretion, whether the order should be changed.

3. A compelling reason must be something which may outweigh the fundamental importance of finality, such as a mistake, fundamental misapprehension, or fundamental evidence or law overlooked. The threshold should be assessed without retrying the issue through meticulous examination of all the evidence. The jurisdiction cannot become a gateway to a second round of wide-ranging debate.

4. Docklock’s complaints did not satisfy that threshold. The alleged errors concerning the experts’ agreed valuation basis did not undermine the substantive reasoning. The marketing evidence and material concerning the Building Regulations 2010 were available, or could have been obtained, before trial. Docklock had made tactical decisions about the evidence and could not use reconsideration to refight the issue after an adverse result. The court had not decided that subletting was unlawful; it had found that the defendant’s expert had not adequately addressed the relevant practical and regulatory assumptions.

5. The court also declined to infer dishonesty from the material relied upon. Even if the issue were reopened, further disclosure, expert evidence, witness statements and oral evidence would be required. That was not a knock-out blow comparable to the circumstances considered in L’Oreal (UK) Ltd v Liqwd Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 1943.

6. In any event, the discretion would have been refused. Reopening one discrete issue in complex satellite litigation, with no more than £78,370.42 at stake, would be wholly disproportionate. The principal valuation reason had not been challenged. Finality therefore required dismissal. The final hearing was to be relisted for consequential matters, including costs.

The judgment concerned an application to revisit the court’s own earlier judgment in the same proceedings. It was not an appeal from another court.