Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v John Forster Emmott

A case-management stay may be imposed or reinstated where exceptional and continuing litigation would otherwise consume disproportionate court resources, particularly when a related foreign judgment may determine an issue capable of giving rise to an issue estoppel. The stay may properly include carefully defined exceptions for claims or applications unaffected by that issue. The court should also consider whether parallel appeals create a risk of inconsistent or duplicated proceedings. A proposed declaration concerning the parties’ account should ordinarily be pursued through an appropriate procedural route, potentially fresh Part 8 proceedings, rather than an application within existing claims where a trial may be required.

The claimant and defendant were engaged in extensive, long-running litigation across several jurisdictions. The court had imposed a case-management stay on 1 November 2024 pending determination of related proceedings in New South Wales. Those proceedings were dismissed after trial, but appeals and applications for permission remained pending.

The claimant opposed reinstatement of the stay and sought to proceed with numerous claims and applications. The defendant supported reinstatement. The central issue was whether the previous stay should be restored, and which proceedings should be exempted because they were unaffected by the Temujin Partnership issue or could be dealt with independently.

1. The stay was reinstated. The court considered that the factors supporting the earlier stay continued to apply. The related New South Wales proceedings might give rise to an issue estoppel concerning the Temujin Partnership issue, which was important to the English litigation. Pending appeals created a risk that proceedings in England might proceed on a basis later displaced by the appellate courts.
2. The exceptional history and continuing volume of the litigation made proportionality central to the case-management decision. The court was required to ensure that only an appropriate share of court resources was allocated to these proceedings, having regard also to the demands of other cases.
3. The stay was subject to defined exceptions. These comprised the outstanding contempt application, the application for an inquiry into damages under the cross-undertaking given on discharge of a freezing order, the Part 7 Sinclair Debt claim, and any claim or application issued within the specified period seeking a declaration that no sum remained due to the defendant.
4. The contempt application and damages inquiry were unaffected by the Temujin Partnership issue and had no proper basis for being stayed. The Sinclair Debt claim was a free-standing claim which did not involve that issue and could proceed independently.
5. The proposed declaration required procedural consideration. The court was unconvinced that the issue could be resolved without a trial by application notice in existing claims. If pursued, fresh Part 8 proceedings might be appropriate, although the point had not been argued. Any such proceedings were to be issued promptly, provisionally within 28 days, and should take priority over the damages inquiry and Sinclair Debt claim if they resolved the set-off issue.
6. Claim CL-2010-000804 required no exception because the defendant was not a party to it and it was outside the existing stay.

The parties were directed to submit a draft order by 16.00 on 24 March 2025.

The judgment records that a case-management stay had previously been imposed by the High Court in the November Judgment, [2024] EWHC 2731 (Comm). Related proceedings in New South Wales had been dismissed at first instance, with appeals or applications for permission still pending. This court reinstated the stay in the present proceedings.