[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)

Neither Mr Robins, nor Mr Watson made any submissions in respect of the overriding objective, beyond Mr Robins asserting that it was not, and Mr Watson asserting that it was, consistent with the overriding objective, for me to grant permission in relation to grounds 1 and 5.

The overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost (CPR 1.1(1)) which can most obviously be applied to procedural steps in existing proceedings, rather than deciding whether to grant permission for proceedings to be taken at all.

I have already commented on the issue of proportionality in relation to grounds 1 and 5 and have concluded that, if I had been satisfied that the other factors pointed in favour of giving permission for Sanman to proceed on grounds 1 and 5, nonetheless it may not have been justifiable or proportionate to give Sanman permission to proceed on grounds 1 and 5 as well as grounds 3 and 4 (if I decide to give permission for grounds 3 and 4) for reasons I have already explained. CPR 1.1(2) sets out a list of other factors said to be included in the assessment of whether a particular step promotes the objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. It seems to me that those other factors, relevant to the overriding objective are subsumed within the other principles that I have and will apply in deciding whether to grant permission. Given the comments that I have already made concerning ground 1 and 5, in relation to the use of the courts’ resources and other resources and proportionality, I consider that the overriding objective points, although not strongly, against giving permission on grounds 1 and 5.