International Game Technology Plc & Ors v The Gambling Commission

A preliminary issue should be ordered where it can determine the proceedings or a significant issue, materially reduce preparation or trial costs, or improve settlement prospects, provided that it can be tried without unjustified delay. The court must assess the factual complexity, likely utility, timetable and overall justice of the order.

Documents and witness statements disclosed under directions requiring coordinated disclosure across separate but jointly managed proceedings may be used in the related proceedings. If permission is required for collateral use, it may be granted where the circumstances provide cogent reasons, including the parties’ common understanding, the terms of the directions and the prejudice caused by refusing use.

The Gambling Commission applied for determination of a preliminary issue concerning whether the IGT claimants had standing or an actionable right under the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016. The issue arose after Camelot discontinued its related claims and the remaining claimants’ roles in the competition differed, including bidder, subcontractor and holding-company roles.

The IGT claimants separately sought permission, if necessary, to use Camelot’s disclosed documents and witness statements. The Commission sought further information and disclosure concerning the claimants’ damages case. The court also considered Allwyn’s participation in the preliminary issue hearing and consequential directions and costs.

1. Preliminary issue. The Commission’s application was granted. The standing and actionability issue was potentially decisive of the proceedings, or at least of the claimants’ right to seek damages, and was capable of narrowing the liability trial and promoting settlement. Although limited factual issues might require evidence, there was no substantial dispute concerning the claimants’ roles. A hearing was fixed for June 2023 without further delaying the January 2024 trial.
2. In deciding whether to order a preliminary issue, the court considered whether determination would dispose of the whole or part of the case, reduce pre-trial or trial time and costs, be capable of resolution on identified facts, and avoid delay. The court also considered the likelihood that the issue would otherwise require determination and whether ordering it was just and proportionate in all the circumstances.
3. Use of Camelot documents. The court was inclined to conclude that the IGT claimants could use Camelot’s documents and witness statements without permission. Although the proceedings remained separate, the parties had acted under common directions requiring disclosure and witness statements to be served across the jointly managed claims. The documents were therefore provided for the purposes of both proceedings.
4. If permission was required under CPR 31.22 or CPR 32.12, it was granted. The circumstances supplied cogent reasons: the common litigation framework, the absence of any caveat when the documents were exchanged, the parties’ understanding that the material could be relied upon, and the significant prejudice to IGT if its litigation strategy had to change. Any additional burden on Camelot was comparatively minor.
5. Further information and disclosure. The Commission was entitled to a more detailed breakdown and key supporting documents for the substantial loss-of-profit claim, including internal financial models and management accounts. The other requests concerning subsidiary heads of loss and mitigation were premature and disproportionate. The information was to be supplied subject to an appropriate confidentiality arrangement outside the existing ring.
6. Allwyn and costs. Allwyn had a separate and proportionate interest in participating in the preliminary issue, since a successful challenge could avoid substantial trial costs. Its participation was permitted with shared time and no duplication of submissions. Costs of the preliminary issue application were costs in the preliminary issue; other application costs were costs in the case, subject to the stated exceptions.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.