Great Hall Mortgages No.1 PLC & Anor v Law Debenture Corporate Services LTD & Ors

Where related proceedings concern the alleged unauthorised assumption of control of a company, the court may case-manage applications together to secure a proportionate use of resources and costs. A proposed defendant need not incur the cost of evidence on a joinder application while a potentially dispositive strike-out application remains unresolved.

An in-person hearing may be required where the identity and existence of individuals purporting to act for corporate parties is centrally in issue. Remote determination is inappropriate if personal attendance is necessary to test and establish those matters.

The first claimant company alleged that persons unconnected with it had attempted improperly to take control of it and its assets. The Part 7 proceedings included an application to join the company’s solicitors and two partners as defendants, and an application by the company and existing defendants to strike out the claim and obtain summary judgment.

Separate Part 8 proceedings sought declarations and injunctions concerning the identity of the company’s genuine office-holders and the legitimacy of steps taken by the Part 8 defendants. The court had to determine directions for the joinder, strike-out and Part 8 proceedings, including whether the substantive hearings should be remote.

1. Directions granted. The joinder application would be listed for directions when judgment was handed down on the Part 7 strike-out application. The time for the proposed Fieldfisher defendants to serve evidence on joinder was extended until then. If the strike-out application succeeded, there would be no Part 7 proceedings to which they could be joined; requiring evidence beforehand would therefore waste cost and time.
2. The Part 8 claim was to be listed with the strike-out application. It was effectively the mirror image of that application. A combined listing was proportionate, enabled an early determination of the dispute concerning the status of the Cherry parties, and avoided unnecessary use of court and party resources.
3. The court rejected submissions that the proceedings were disparate and should be separately managed. The proposed course properly controlled costs while resolving the connected issues determinatively.
4. The substantive hearing was to be in person, not remote. The alleged identity and existence of the individuals behind the Cherry parties was central to the dispute. They had to file evidence establishing that they existed and were the persons claimed. Personal attendance was vital so that they could demonstrate their identities without doubt or hesitation.
5. The strike-out application and Part 8 proceedings were, if possible, to follow related hearings before the same judge. That arrangement would reduce the overall judicial time and resources required without requiring parties to attend unrelated hearings.

not stated in the judgment.