Real Time Systems Ltd v Renraw Investments Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKPC 6 |
| Date | 03 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0056 of 2012 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2014] UKPC 6
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Appeal No 0056 of 2012
Privy Council
From the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago
Appellants
William McCormick QC
Om Lalla
(Instructed by Carter Ruck)
Respondent
Geoffrey Robertson QC
Amy Rogers
Neal Bisnath
(Instructed by Howard Kennedy FSI)
Heard on 18 February 2014
This appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeal, raises a short but important point on the interpretation of the Civil Proceedings Rules ("CPR"), in force since 2005.
Real Time Systems Ltd ("Real Time"), the respondent before the Board, claim that in October and November 2007 it paid the appellants, who trade as Dr Joao Havelange Centre of Excellence ("the Centre"), sums totalling just over TT$1.5m by way of loan repayable by 28 February 2008, in respect of which no repayments have been made.
In answer to a pre-action protocol letter dated 17 March 2010 demanding repayment in similarly general terms, the Centre through its attorneys wrote on 1 April 2010 requesting particulars of the loan, namely (i) whether the agreement was oral or in writing, (ii) when it was made and who were the parties and (iii) if it was oral what were its specific terms and conditions.
Real Time's response on 15 April 2010 was to issue proceedings, by a claim form and statement of case both again generally framed, to write on 16 April 2010, referring to the Centre's letter of 1 April and advising the Centre of the issue of the proceedings, and on 3 May 2010 to make an application for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit which vouchsafed no further details.
The Centre resisted this application by solicitor's affidavit alleging that the TT$1.5m had been a gift made pursuant to conversations between Mr Austin Jack Warner, the Centre's principal directing mind, and Mr Krishna Lalla, in which the latter had indicated his desire to make such a gift, for reasons which the affidavit did not explain.
On 22 July 2010 it was ordered by consent that the proceedings should stand as the lead matter for 22 other actions, involving further alleged loans totalling over TT$26.5m made to the Centre or in five such cases to Jamed Ltd.
On 10 August 2010 the Centre applied to have the proceedings struck out as an abuse of the process for, inter alia, failure to identify proper particulars of the alleged loans and non-compliance with CPR Part 8.6.
The applications were decided on the papers by Rampersad J, who on 8 November 2011 gave a judgment, in which he held that the statement of case did not comply with Part 8.6. But he went on to say that
"…. the court further upholds the defendants' attorney's submission that a request for information pursuant to Part 35 would be premature at this stage since the sanction for non-compliance with such a request is not exercisable before the time for serving of witness statements has expired …. In any event, the claimant refused to respond positively to the defendant's written request made on 1 April 2010 for details of the alleged loan so that in any event, no further information seems forthcoming. As such, the court strikes out the statement of case pursuant to Part 26.2 of the CPR."
Real Time appealed, relying on a presumption of a loan arising it submitted from the payment itself. Only in submissions before the Court of Appeal, did Real Time say in answer to the Court that it was ready, willing and able to provide the details. The Court of Appeal regarded the Centre's pre-action request for particulars as eminently reasonable, and considered that, if there was no power to order particulars, the judge's decision could not be said to be plainly wrong. But, in a judgment given by Jamadar JA, it went on to take a different view of the CPR, and in particular of the inter-relationship of Parts 25, 26 and 35. It concluded that the judge was plainly wrong to hold that he could not, in particular under Part 26.1(1)(w), order particulars of a statement of case at the stage when the matter came before him, although it noted Real Time's failure at any time prior to the Court of Appeal hearing to offer to supply particulars, or indeed to make any specific submission contrary to the judge's view of Part 35. The Court of Appeal thus reversed the judge's decision to strike out the statement of case, and remitted the matter to him for reconsideration of the appropriate order to make on the striking out application.
The Civil Proceedings Rules include these:
" The overriding objective
1.1 (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly, …
Claimant's duty to set out his case
8.6 (1) The claimant must include on the claim form or in his statement of case a short statement of all the facts on which he relies.
Changes to statements of case
20.1 (1) A statement of case may be changed at any time prior to a case management conference without the court's permission.
(2) The court may give permission to change a statement of case at a case management conference.
(3) The court may not give permission to change a statement of case after the first case management conference unless the party wishing to change a statement of case can satisfy the court that the change is necessary because of some change in circumstances which became known after that case management conference.
Court's duty to manage cases
25.1 The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases, which may include —
(a) identifying the issues at an early stage; …
Court's general powers of management
26.1 (1) The court (including where appropriate the court of Appeal) may —
….
(w) take any other step, give any other direction or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective.
(2) When the court makes an order or gives a direction, it may make the order or direction subject to conditions.
Sanctions — striking out statement of case
26.2 (1) The court may strike out a statement of case or part of a statement of case if it appears to the court —
(a) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or with an order or direction given by the court in the proceedings;
(b) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is an abuse of the process of the court;
(c) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out discloses no grounds for bringing or defending a claim; or
(d) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is prolix or does not comply with the requirements of Part 8 or 10.
Court's general power to strike out statement of case
26.3 (1) Where a party has failed to comply with any of these Rules or any court order in respect of which no sanction for noncompliance has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renraw Investments Ltd and Others v Real Time Systems Ltd
...particulars. Upon appeal to the Judicial Committee, the Board upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in a judgment, under citation [2014] UKPC 6, handed down on 3 March 21 The case was remitted to Rampersad J who by order dated 22 July 2014 directed the claimant to provide further and ......
-
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd v Carlos Ghosn
...Limited v Gambling Regulatory Authority and others [2015] UKPC 29 and Real Time Systems Limited v Renraw Investments Limited and Others [2014] UKPC 6.)” 301 It seems to me that the answer to the Defendants' strike out application lies in the application of these principles, without the ne......
-
[1] Nissan Motor Company, Ltd [2] Nissan Middle East Fze v [1] Carlos Ghosn [2] Carole Nahas Ghosn [3] Beauty Yachts Pty Ltd
...Limited v Gambling Regulatory Authority and others [2015] UKPC 29 and Real Time Systems Limited v Renraw Investments Limited and Others [2014] UKPC 6.)” 301 It seems to me that the answer to the Defendants’ strike out application lies in the application of these principles, without the ne......
-
[1] George Allert (Administrator of the Estate of George Gordon Matheson, deceased) [2] George Allert [3] Edmund Allert [4] Anthony Allert [5] Mary Glennie Allert [6] Pearl Allert Appellants v [1] Joshua Matheson [2] Madeline Matheson Respondents
...of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 applied; Real Time Systems Limited v Renraw Investments Ltd CCAM and Company Limited, Austin Jack Warner 2014 UKPC 6 applied; Citco Global Custody NV v Y2K Finance Inc, Territory of the Virgin Islands, BVIHCVAP2008/0022 (delivered 19th October 2009, unrepor......