Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm)

A split trial is an exceptional case-management order. The court must first consider whether there is a sufficiently clear separation between the issues proposed for each trial. If so, it must adopt a broad, common-sense and pragmatic assessment of all the circumstances, consistently with the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include overlap in evidence, disclosure and expert opinion, delay, costs, prejudice, settlement prospects and court resources. A proposed split should be refused where it risks satellite disputes, evidential gaps, repeated testimony or delay without a real and substantial advantage. The possibility that one stage might dispose of the claim is relevant but will not ordinarily outweigh those considerations.

The claimant brought a professional negligence claim against her former solicitors. She alleged that they should have advised her in January 2017 about enforcing a financial remedy order against a superyacht in Miami. The defendant denied breach, duty, causation and loss.

The claimant applied for a split trial, with breach and duty determined before causation and loss. She submitted that an early decision might dispose of the claim or promote settlement. The central issue was whether the proposed division created a sufficiently clear boundary and was justified as a matter of case management.

1. The application for a split trial was refused. The power arose under CPR 3.1(2), particularly CPR 3.1(2)(j) and (k), and had to be exercised consistently with the overriding objective.
2. The decision required a broad discretion and a common-sense, pragmatic assessment of all the circumstances. The factors identified in Steele v Steele, Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd v Philips Electronics UK Ltd and Jinxin Inc v Aser Media Pte Ltd were not exhaustive.
3. The starting point was whether there was a sufficiently clear bright line between the proposed stages. A split trial was an exceptional departure from the norm of a single trial and required a real and substantial advantage. The cautions in McLoughlin v Jones, Bindel v PinkNews Media Group Ltd and Rosetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd were relevant.
4. There was no sufficiently clear separation between breach and duty and causation. The claimant’s pleaded case required consideration of whether enforcement against the yacht was favourable and whether she should have been advised positively to pursue it. Those questions overlapped with the counterfactual causation case and with the Florida law evidence.
5. Even if a workable division could be formulated, the overall circumstances opposed a split. They included the age of the events, delay, likely duplication of witness and expert evidence, disclosure overlap, increased costs, prejudice to witnesses and parties, limited settlement benefit, court resources and the risk of appeal.
6. Progressing all issues together was more likely to permit an earlier and fairer resolution and meaningful settlement discussions. The claimant was required to engage with causation and loss, including disclosure of the Settlement and Funding Agreement.

Not stated in the judgment.