Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd & Others v Tughans (A Firm)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Foxton |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2021-000582 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
Mr Justice Foxton
Case No: CL-2021-000582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION CLAIM
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ben Hubble KC and Brendan McGurk (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Claimant (and Arbitration Respondent)
Richard Coleman KC and Nathalie Koh (instructed by Fenchurch Law Limited) for the Defendant (and Arbitration Claimant)
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Foxton
This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Wednesday 09 November 2022 at 10:00AM.
This ruling relates to the judgment handed down in this case on 14 October 2022 ( [2022] EWHC 2589 (Comm)) and addresses a number of consequential issues which arise from that judgment, including applications for permission to appeal.
I have taken the unusual step of handing down a reserved judgment, because the resolution of the consequential issues in this case has generated difficulties which are occurring in a number of cases in the Commercial Court, and which have made it clear that a change in approach to the resolution of consequential issues is desirable.
The procedural background to the consequential submissions
It is necessary to set out the chronology in some detail.
The hearing took place on 27 and 28 July 2022.
The parties filed further written submissions on 22 August (RSA), 2 September (Tughans) and 7 September (RSA).
The judgment was provided to the parties in draft on 13 September, with a request that the parties seek to agree a timetable for consequential issues.
On 4 October, the parties responded saying that they would endeavour to agree a proposed draft order for the court by 7 October 2022, and, in the absence of agreement “file and serve short written submissions to the Court by 14 October 2022, following which parties will file and serve replies (if any) to the Court by 21 October 2022”.
By return, I asked the parties for submissions on the issue of anonymisation. On 7 October I was informed that Tughans were seeking to anonymise the judgment, that this “may not be straightforward” and that:
“in light of this, we jointly propose the following amended timetable for production of a proposed redacted judgment, draft order and any consequentials:
1. The parties will file and serve joint proposed redactions and a joint note on anonymisation to the Court by 21 October 2022.
2. The parties will endeavour to agree a proposed draft order for the Court by 21 October 2022.
3. In the event that parties are unable to agree on a proposed draft order, both parties will file and serve short written submissions to the Court by 28 October 2022, following which parties will file and serve replies (if any) to the Court by 4 November 2022.
We apologise for the delay to the original timetable provided to the Court on 4 October 2022. However, having discussed the issue, we consider that it will take some time to agree on an approach to anonymisation in the circumstances. The parties' view, subject to the Court's approval, is that it is sensible to provide the proposals for anonymisation and the position on the order and consequentials in accordance with a single timetable as set out above.”
I responded stating:
“The draft of this judgment was provided to the parties on 13 September. The process of finalising a draft is intended to be a relatively quick process. The Judge intends to hand down judgment on 14 October and the parties are asked to put forward their submissions in support of and proposals for anonymisation in sufficient time for that to happen”.
On 10 October, I received a joint email from the parties confirming that I would receive joint submissions on anonymisation that week, and asking:
“Please can we clarify that otherwise the timetable for submissions on consequentials as set out in our email dated 7 October is acceptable? This is as follows:
1. The parties will endeavour to agree a proposed draft order for the Court by 21 October 2022.
2. In the event that parties are unable to agree on a proposed draft order, both parties will file and serve short written submissions to the Court by 28 October 2022, following which parties will file and serve replies (if any) to the Court by 4 November 2022.”
I would emphasise the words “short written submissions”.
I confirmed my acceptance of that timetable. With the benefit of hindsight, I should not have done so, and, in respect of the period after 10 October, it is entirely my fault that the consequential process has been so strung out. I should also not have proceeded on the basis that there was a shared understanding between all concerned as to how long “short written submissions” would be, and it would have been better to have imposed a page limit.
On 13 October 2022, both parties confirmed that they were not seeking to anonymise the judgment, and the hand-down was listed for 10am on 14 October on a remote basis. At 09.47 on the day of hand-down, my clerk received a joint request from the parties to delay hand-down. I was hearing another matter at 10am and given the lateness of the application and the fact that the hearing had already been listed for judgment, I proceeded with the hand-down.
On 28 October 2022, I received the parties' first round of submissions. On RSA's part, they comprised a skeleton argument of 24 pages solely addressing the issue of permission to appeal, doing so at much greater length than the issues covered had been addressed in the skeleton argument for the hearing. Tughans' skeleton argument, at 12 pages, was not only much shorter but addressed all the consequential issues.
On 4 November 2022, I received the reply submissions, at a combined length of some 17 pages.
The end-result is that over 7 weeks after the parties were provided with the judgment in draft, the Court is faced with over 50 pages of written submissions to resolve issues arising from a judgment which followed a 2-day hearing.
Dealing with consequential issues arising from a judgment following a short hearing in this way is not conducive to the efficient conduct of litigation in this court. Time is not reserved in judges' diaries to deal with lengthy disputes about consequential matters, a task which becomes more time-consuming the longer the period which has elapsed from the provision of the draft judgment to the parties. The process of resolving consequential issues on the basis of written submissions is not intended to involve a substantial departure from the way in which these issues are traditionally dealt with at short oral hearings immediately following the handing down of judgment. Nor is it appropriate or realistic to expect the court to grapple with lengthy written submissions on permission to appeal which far exceed the length of the submissions addressing those issues filed for the hearing. It is not difficult to discern a link between these two issues (delay in resolving consequential matters after judgment and lengthy written submissions on permission to appeal): the increased time available is used for the purpose of seeking to re-argue the case in retrospect.
Mr Justice Jacobs has commented on similar issues in Contra Holdings Ltd v MJC Bamford [2022] EWHC 2799 (Comm). In that case, the hearing took place on 8 July 2022, and he handed down judgment on 18 July 2022. As he explains ([10]):
“The draft judgment was provided to parties approximately a week later, and formally handed down shortly after that, on 18 July 2022. An increasingly common, but regrettable, feature of Commercial Court litigation is the apparent difficulty in counsel making themselves available for a hearing of “consequential” matters, following the hand-down of a judgment. This was the reason why, in the present case, no ‘consequentials’ hearing was fixed for July or early August, but instead was deferred until the end of September. Had the consequentials hearing taken place promptly, it is most unlikely that the present application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lonestar Communications Corporation LLC v Daniel Kaye
...for Mr Nicholson, or Lonestar, to seek to revisit their methodology after the draft judgment was circulated (cf. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited v Tughans [2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm), [16]). I3 Future losses 256 I have found that the DDOS Attacks caused: i) the loss of 90,000 subscri......
-
National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd
...permission to appeal, should be dealt with expeditiously so as not to absorb judicial resources unnecessarily. 30 In Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited v Tughans [2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm), Foxton J said this, at paragraph 16: “Dealing with consequential issues arising from a judgment fol......