Roger Leggett & Ors v American International Group UK Limited

Where material is shown to have been sent to the court before a procedural deadline but was not received because of transmission difficulties, the court may set aside and remake its order to take that material into account. A consequential order must reflect the case actually pleaded, presented and determined at trial. New allegations, evidence and legal grounds cannot be introduced after judgment to obtain relief on a preliminary issue. Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the court may make no order as to costs where the successful parties’ late identification and presentation of their claims makes that outcome fair.

The judgment concerned consequential matters following the court’s judgment on a preliminary issue, handed down on 12 February 2025. The court had made an order substantially in the terms of the defendant’s draft because no submissions appeared to have been received from the claimants by the extended deadline.

It later emerged that the claimants’ solicitor had sent an email with substantial materials and alternative draft orders before the deadline, although the court office had no record of receiving it. The court set aside its order of its own motion and reconsidered the consequential order on the basis that the email had been sent in time. The issues were whether the proposed orders reflected the findings at trial and how the costs of the preliminary issue should be allocated.

1. Reconsideration of consequential order. The court set aside its earlier order when it became apparent that material had been sent before the deadline but had not reached the court, apparently because of transmission difficulties. Having reviewed the material, the court proceeded on the basis that it had been received in time and removed two inaccurate sentences from the earlier judgment concerning non-compliance with the deadline (paras [5]-[13]).
2. Limits of consequential relief. The claimants’ proposed primary and secondary orders were not supported by the judgment on the preliminary issue. They relied on new allegations, evidence and arguments concerning breaches by the LLP, reservation fees, deposits, ledgers and later legal advice. Those matters had not been pleaded, evidenced, or argued at trial and could not provide a foundation for the order sought. The consequential order had to reflect the case presented and determined, rather than a new case advanced after judgment (paras [16]-[25], [29]-[36]).
3. Scope of relief. Only six claimants were entitled to a declaration that they be indemnified in respect of the full judgments obtained against the LLP, together with the costs and interest awarded against the LLP, subject to aggregation. The claims of the other claimants were dismissed (paras [37]-[38]).
4. Costs. The claimants whose claims were dismissed were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2(2)(a), costs following the event in the ordinary way. No order as to the costs of the preliminary issue was made for the six successful claimants. Although they succeeded, their claims were identified and supported late, after the defendant had made efforts to obtain the relevant information before trial. That outcome represented a fair balance in the circumstances (paras [39]-[40]).

Not an appeal. The judgment followed the court’s preliminary-issue judgment handed down on 12 February 2025 and dealt with the consequential order and costs.