Various Claimants v MGN Ltd

Procedural timetables should secure the orderly and proportionate preparation of litigation while allowing reasonable opportunities for settlement. Case management measures may be adjusted where existing arrangements risk delaying trial, but changes should address the demonstrated problem and avoid disproportionate sanctions. A party’s repeated default may justify a staged default mechanism, particularly where the sanction follows more than one failure to comply and remains subject to relief from sanctions. Fairness to a party preparing multiple documents must be balanced against the overall requirements of an effective trial timetable.

This was a case management ruling in the fourth wave of the Mirror Newspapers hacking litigation. There were 85 live claims, with trial fixed for June 2023. The claimants sought changes to the established procedure, including removal or reduction of moratoria and stays, shorter periods for early disclosure, changes to the de-clustering of defences, and an automatic sanction concerning search terms and custodians.

The court also considered arrangements for accounting hearings and the attendance of additional lawyers. The central issues were whether the proposed changes would materially improve the conduct of the litigation and what revised arrangements were proportionate in light of the defendant’s previous defaults.

1. Case management timetable. The existing 42-day pre-action moratorium, one-month stay after pleadings, and 28-day period for early disclosure were not shown to be the cause of the timetable difficulties. Their removal or reduction was therefore refused. Opportunities for informed negotiation were beneficial where time permitted.
2. Defences. The court retained the de-clustering provision, allowing the defendant up to three working days’ leeway where several defences were due together. Fairness in preparing detailed defences could not, however, override the requirements of an effective trial timetable. All outstanding defences in the 85 claims were required to be served by 30 June 2022, subject to any later application by the defendant to vary that order.
3. Search terms and custodians. The defendant’s persistent default justified a revised staged procedure. The defendant retained 14 days to propose terms and custodians. On default, the claimants could propose them within a further 14 days. If the defendant then failed to respond substantively within the next 14 days, the claimants’ proposals would apply by default, subject to an application for relief from sanctions. If there was a substantive response, the parties had a further 14 days to seek agreement, after which any dispute had to be brought promptly before the court. The sanction was proportionate because it followed a double default rather than a single failure.
4. Accounting hearings and costs. Accounting hearings were to resume. Attendance by a third or fourth claimant lawyer was not authorised generally, but the court could certify the additional attendance as costs of the action where a particular issue could not reasonably be handled by the lead solicitor and counsel.

The ruling was made at a case management conference in ongoing High Court proceedings. The judgment records earlier case management orders and a previous short judgment, but gives no separate appellate history.