Lee Castleton v Post Office Ltd & Anor

In deciding whether to order a split trial or preliminary issue, the court must apply a pragmatic balancing exercise directed to the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include whether the proposed issues are legally and factually distinct, potentially dispositive, likely to save costs and time, and capable of being tried by a clean division. The court must also assess complexity, disclosure, witnesses, duplication, delay, prejudice, settlement prospects and the risk of fragmented appeals. The power should be exercised cautiously, but remains an important case-management tool in a suitable case.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Post Office and Fujitsu arising from an earlier judgment concerning alleged shortfalls at his post-office branch. The claims comprised Part A claims concerning the construction and effect of a settlement deed, alleged unconscionability and fraudulent misrepresentation, and Parts B and C claims alleging abuse of process, fraud and unlawful means conspiracy.

At a directions hearing, the defendants sought an early trial of the Part A claims. The claimant opposed separating some issues. The central question was whether the Part A claims should be tried before the more extensive Parts B and C claims.

1. The court ordered, under CPR 3.1(2)(j), a separate trial of the Part A claims before trial of the Part B and Part C claims.
2. The correct approach to a split trial is an essentially pragmatic balancing exercise. The court followed the guidance in Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd v Philips Electronics UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch), concerning costs, trial preparation, witnesses, complexity, prejudice, a clean division, duplication, delay, appeals, settlement and fair, quick and efficient resolution.
3. The court also considered the guidance summarised in Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 902 (Ch), derived from Steele v Steele [2001] CP Rep 106, on preliminary issues.
4. The Part A claims were legally and factually distinct from Parts B and C, involved limited disclosure and evidence, and were potentially decisive of the proceedings. Parts B and C were materially more complex, involving serious allegations concerning events more than 20 years earlier, numerous potential witnesses and extensive disclosure.
5. The allegations of fraud could not be treated as straightforward merely because a public inquiry had criticised the wider conduct. They required careful assessment of the relevant states of mind, attribution to the organisations and the nature and extent of any dishonesty.
6. Although a separate trial might cause some additional time and cost if the claimant succeeded, the potential saving if the defendants succeeded, the clear separation of issues and the limited witness overlap justified the order. The order furthered the overriding objective under CPR 1.1 to 1.4.