London & Quadrant Housing Trust & Anor v WPHV Ltd (in administration) & Ors

Case-management decisions should be directed to the efficient, fair and proportionate preparation of the issues for trial. Multiple legal representatives may be permitted where genuine conflicts justify separate representation, although duplication of costs may later be disallowed. Disclosure or comments intended to assist mediation should not ordinarily be ordered where the parties can exchange the material voluntarily. A Scott Schedule is inappropriate where it would duplicate the pleadings, create uncertainty about the parties’ cases, or become unwieldy. Expert evidence may properly be split where parties require confidential engagement with experts on materially different liability issues, but a single expert is preferable where the issues are common, such as quantum.

The claimants brought proceedings concerning alleged defects and breaches relating to buildings, with claims involving construction parties and multiple layers of insurers. The court considered a series of case-management issues, including overlapping legal representation, early disclosure to support mediation, costs of inspections, the scope of further inspections, Scott Schedules, supplementary statements, and the number and allocation of experts.

The central questions were whether the proposed directions were necessary and proportionate, and how the court should balance efficient trial preparation against genuine conflicts between parties or insurance layers.

1. Representation. The Civil Procedure Rules did not positively prohibit a party from instructing two firms of solicitors and two counsel. The overlapping insurers could therefore retain separate representation because potential conflicts existed between the excess layers and appropriate internal safeguards had been described. The court nevertheless indicated that duplicate costs across liability and quantum issues might not be reasonable.
2. Mediation disclosure. Early disclosure of tender documentation and ordered comments on disclosed material were refused. The timetable allowed space for mediation, and the parties could exchange information about proposed remedial works and costs by agreement without a court order.
3. Inspection costs. The claimants’ application for the costs of two previous inspections to be paid in any event was refused. The circumstances did not provide a compelling reason to depart from the ordinary costs position. The defendants were ordered to fund the reasonable costs of a further inspection in equal shares, without finally determining who should bear those costs.
4. Scott Schedule. No Scott Schedule was ordered. The proposed document would have duplicated the pleadings, risked uncertainty about the parties’ cases, and been unwieldy. If inspections revealed a need to change the Defences, the proper course was to seek amendment. The correlation between the liability cases was better addressed through expert evidence and a joint statement.
5. Statements and experts. Supplementary statements were permitted only where necessary and should respond to matters introduced in other statements or matters subsequently arising. Separate fire-engineering and architectural experts were permitted for the relevant defendant groupings because of genuine liability and confidentiality concerns. The insurance defendants were required to share a single quantum expert, since the identified conflicts did not arise in the same way on quantum. Other defendants could retain their own quantum experts.
6. Building Liability Order. A forensic accounting expert was permitted because the financial conduct and relationships relevant to the proposed Building Liability Order were likely to require expert assistance in navigating the disclosed material.

First-instance case-management decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.