Helius Media Limited v Like Futures Limited (in liquidation) & Ors

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no real prospect of establishing an arguable legal, procedural or evidential error. Appellate courts will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s case-management discretion, including decisions to adjourn proceedings briefly to cure procedural difficulties. A party who is given a fair opportunity to participate but elects substantially not to do so cannot ordinarily establish an Article 6 breach arising from that non-participation. Complaints about evidence must be tested through the trial process, including cross-examination and the giving of evidence.

Helius Media Limited obtained judgment against Like Futures Limited and its directors, Ryan Lewis Davies and Ian Robert Davies, for unpaid deferred consideration under a settlement agreement. The directors were held jointly and severally liable under a guarantee and indemnity. The defendants challenged the trial before HHJ Hellman, alleging unfairness, inadequate time, defects in the trial bundle, improper admission of documents, refusal of an adjournment and other procedural errors.

The second defendant applied for permission to appeal the order dated 26 April 2023 and sought an interim stay. The application concerned whether the proposed grounds disclosed any arguable error or breach of the defendants’ fair-trial rights.

1. Application refused. There was no arguable point with a real prospect of success, and the application for a stay also failed.
2. HHJ Hellman had dealt with the first-day adjournment application pragmatically. He postponed the trial until the following morning and directed the claimant to provide annotated witness statements cross-referenced to the trial bundle. That approach was consistent with the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and there was no arguable error in the exercise of his discretion.
3. The refusal to reopen the adjournment application on the second day was not arguably unfair. The defendants could have tested their complaints by cross-examining the claimant’s witnesses and giving evidence. They chose not to do so.
4. The defendants’ substantial non-participation followed a series of procedural failures, including late filing, failure to answer Part 18 questions, non-payment of costs orders and late disclosure. Their resulting difficulties were substantially of their own making. The trial judge nevertheless considered their pleaded cases on the merits.
5. The security for costs request had not been formally issued or listed. Refusing to entertain it at trial disclosed no arguable error and granting it would have been unfair and disproportionate.
6. The judge was entitled to reject allegations that documents or emails had been doctored, to accept the claimant’s evidence on the settlement agreement and guarantee, and to decline to treat the second defendant as an expert where the proper procedures had not been followed.
7. In those circumstances, the defendants could not successfully complain that their rights under Article 6 had been breached.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Permission to appeal the order of HHJ Hellman dated 26 April 2023 was refused. An application for an interim stay was also refused.