Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors. v Mehta & Ors.

The court may consolidate closely connected proceedings at an early stage where they are, in substance, a single case and consolidation furthers the overriding objective. It need not wait for defences, a case management conference, or interlocutory applications where the overlap is already clear.

A non-coercive case management order may be made without notice to unserved defendants where affected parties can apply to set it aside. Consolidation is not procedurally improper merely because it may improve the claimant’s position on service out, provided it is independently justified. Time for service may be extended where delay is reasonably explained, modest, and unlikely to prejudice limitation rights.

The claimants brought several actions arising from an alleged international fraud. The May and June Actions concerned members of the Mehta family and others. The September Action concerned additional defendants said to have participated in the same fraud. Related insolvency applications were also pending.

The claimants sought consolidation of the actions and related proceedings, together with an extension of the expired September claim form to 31 May 2023. The existing defendants opposed consolidation, arguing that the court should wait for defences, interlocutory applications, or a case management conference, and that no order should be made before the September defendants had been served. The issues were whether consolidation was justified, whether it could be ordered without notice, whether the application was procedurally improper, and whether time for service should be extended.

1. Consolidation. The three actions represented, in reality and substance, a single case. They concerned the same alleged fraud, substantially the same factual allegations, and the same underlying payments. The September Action principally added defendants and sought relief against them. The court therefore had a compelling case management basis for consolidation under CPR 3.1(2)(g), in accordance with the overriding objective.
2. The relevant factors included overlap of parties, facts and issues; avoiding inconsistent findings; saving costs and delay; the stage of the proceedings; whether equivalent benefits could be obtained by concurrent trial or case management; and whether the claimants could be jointly represented. The overlap was already self-evident. Consolidation would simplify pleadings, electronic filing and future case management, and would not realistically delay or increase the costs of the existing defendants.
3. Order without notice. The authorities relied on by the defendants concerned injunctions or similar coercive orders. Consolidation was a case management order which required the affected defendants to do nothing and left them entitled to apply to set it aside. The court could exercise the power on its own initiative where that furthered the overriding objective. The analogy with CPR 19.4 and Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim No. 4 supported making an order before service. Any application to set aside would be a full de novo hearing and would not itself amount to submission to jurisdiction.
4. Procedural propriety. The claimants could rely on consolidation as an additional jurisdictional gateway. That advantage was a consequence of a properly justified order, not a collateral purpose. The reasoning in Freemont Insurance v Freemont Identity provided support for that conclusion. The application was neither abusive nor procedurally improper.
5. Extension of time. Applying the principles summarised in ST v BAI (SA) (Trading as Brittany Ferries), the court extended time for service to 31 May 2023. The claimants had a reasonably good explanation for waiting for the consolidation decision, the delay was modest, and the evidence indicated that any limitation defence would be unlikely to suffer prejudice. The consolidation order and extension were made.