Abdel-Kader & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors

The court may stay complex multi-party proceedings to facilitate a structured alternative dispute resolution process where that course is proportionate and has a realistic prospect of resolving or narrowing the claims. In group litigation, the court must balance individual parties’ ordinary wish to proceed with the efficient management of the litigation as a whole.

A judgment on admissions requires an admission of a complete cause of action, including actual loss where loss is an essential element. A bare admission of breach is insufficient. The court may continue a stay while permitting agreed judgments, further evidence, updated schedules of loss and investigations necessary for ADR.

The judgment concerned the second case management conference in extensive claims arising from the Grenfell Tower fire. Applications were made by the BLJ claimants for judgment on admissions, interim costs, lifting of the existing stay and service of defences. The emergency responder claimants sought conditions on any further stay. RBKC and other parties sought a further 12-month stay to facilitate ADR and requested that consideration of a group litigation order and managing judge be adjourned.

The central issues were whether judgment could be entered where duty and breach, but not causation and loss, had been admitted; whether interim costs could be ordered; and whether the claims should remain stayed pending ADR and further Inquiry evidence.

1. Judgment on admissions. The BLJ application was granted only in the nine claims in which RBKC had admitted duty, breach and some causative loss or damage. Under CPR 14.3, an admission must constitute a complete cause of action. An admission of breach alone was insufficient where actual damage and causation remained in issue. The personal injury claims were incomplete until the necessary medical evidence had been served: Parrott v Jackson and the principle stated in Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence.
2. Interim costs. No payment on account of costs was ordered. There was no evidence enabling the court to estimate a reasonable sum for liability costs, and the claims were not subject to an order for common costs. The applications could be restored when the stay was lifted: Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc.
3. Further stay. The court ordered a further 12-month stay for the Bindmans BSR claims and the emergency responder claims. Its inherent jurisdiction and powers under CPR 3.1(2)(f) and CPR 26.4(2A), read with the active case-management duty in CPR 1.4(1) and the overriding objective in CPR 1.1, permitted that course. In litigation involving over 1,000 claimants, simultaneous litigation and ADR would be impractical and risk duplicative hearings, evidence and costs. The approach was consistent with OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG, DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd, Muman v Nagasena and Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc.
4. BLJ claims. The application to lift the stay and the application for defences were dismissed. Common issues, incomplete pleadings, outstanding medical evidence, the anticipated Inquiry evidence and the risk of diverting resources from the wider ADR process justified retaining the stay. The court considered that a stay for settlement negotiations did not infringe Article 6 rights.
5. Exceptions and other applications. The stay excluded agreed entry of judgment, clarification of admissions, obtaining medical evidence, updating schedules of loss and investigations agreed for ADR. The proposed six-month break clause and appointment of a lead defendant were refused. Permission to investigate liability was unnecessary, although permission already existed for investigations required for ADR. Consideration of a group litigation order and managing judge was adjourned.