Sean Abram & Ors v Union des Associations Européennes de Football & Anor

On a jurisdiction challenge, the court determines the application on the assumed facts pleaded, unless those facts are demonstrably untrue or unsupportable. It must avoid conducting a mini-trial.

The court has power under Part 3 and rule 35.12 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to direct foreign-law experts to meet, prepare a joint statement and provide supplemental reports. Such directions before an interim jurisdiction hearing are not standard. They should be ordered only where necessary and proportionate, and where compliance is practicable within the available timetable.

Late expert case-management directions should not lead to adjournment unless essential to the just resolution of the jurisdiction challenge, having regard to delay, cost and prejudice to other litigants.

The claimants, 887 Liverpool supporters, brought claims against UEFA arising from congestion and disorder at the 2022 Champions League final. UEFA disputed the English court’s jurisdiction and relied on expert evidence concerning French law.

UEFA applied for directions requiring the French-law experts to meet, prepare a joint statement and serve supplemental reports. It principally sought an adjournment of the jurisdiction hearing, alternatively compressed directions before the listed hearing. The claimants accepted that there was insufficient time for effective expert case management before the hearing and opposed the application.

The application required the court to decide whether further expert directions were necessary and proportionate, and whether the jurisdiction hearing should be adjourned.

1. Application dismissed. UEFA’s application for an adjournment and for compressed expert directions was refused.
2. A jurisdiction challenge is determined on the assumed facts pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, except where those facts are demonstrably untrue or unsupportable. The court must not conduct a mini-trial. This principle was applied by reference to Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3 and Belhaj v Straw [2017] UKSC 3.
3. Rule 35.12 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 permits the court to direct experts of like discipline to discuss the issues, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and, where possible, reach an agreed opinion. The court also has power under Part 3 to make such directions. These powers may be exercised at any stage, but directions for a joint discussion and supplemental reports before an interim hearing are not standard practice.
4. The court must assess whether proposed directions are necessary and proportionate in the context of an interim jurisdiction hearing, and whether they can practicably be completed before the hearing. Expert discussions may narrow disputes, save costs and reduce oral evidence, but the hearing is not a trial.
5. The cases of BB Energy (Gulf) DMCC v Al Amoudi [2018] EWHC 2595 (Comm) and Gulf International Bank BSC v Aldwood [2019] EWHC 1666 (QB) concerned unsatisfactory expert evidence and the need for better case management. They were not authorities requiring orders for joint expert discussions or reports in the present circumstances.
6. The overriding objective required consideration of delay, additional costs and prejudice to other litigants. UEFA had not shown that further directions were essential to the just resolution of the jurisdiction challenge. The expert evidence addressed the relevant issue, and the apparent difficulty was disagreement rather than ambiguity requiring further reports.

First-instance interlocutory decision. The judgment records earlier case-management rulings by Dias J concerning permission and the scope of the French-law expert evidence, but no appeal from those rulings.