CR-2022-BRS-000101 - [2025] EWHC 2291 (Ch)

As will be seen shortly, this agreed summary of the claim was very soon thereafter unagreed. But I need first to set out the history of this litigation. This is immensely complicated, and also lengthy, but it explains how we have arrived at the point we have in this litigation. Not the least of the complications has been the many and varied changes in representation, both as to counsel and as to solicitors, that have taken place, and on both sides. The original petition was presented on 21 September 2022. At that stage, the petitioners were represented by GL Law. I gave directions on the same day, and listed the matter for a case management hearing on 14 December 2022. On 4 October 2022 the petitioners served notice of change of legal representative from GL Law to Shakespeare Martineau LLP. Points of defence were filed on 2 November 2022 by Jackson Lyon LLP. The petitioners’ reply was filed on 30 November 2022. At the CMC on 14 December 2022, the petitioners were represented by Andrew Marsden of counsel, and the active respondents by Lois Aldred and Grace Cheng of counsel. At that hearing I gave directions to trial.

A costs and case management conference was subsequently listed for hearing before me on 20 March 2023. However, on 2 March 2023, the active respondents applied for an order transferring the petition to the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, based at the Rolls Building in London. Before that application could be heard, on 7 March 2023, the court in Bristol listed the petition for trial in Bristol for two weeks from 4 March 2024. On 13 March 2023, the active respondents served notice of change of legal representative from Jackson Lyon LLP to R & H Lawyers LLP. At the hearing on 20 March 2023, Andrew Marsden of counsel represented the petitioners, and Mark Grant of counsel represented the active respondents. At that hearing, I heard and dismissed the petitioners’ application of 2 March 2023, and gave further directions.

Under the terms of the directions, disclosure was to be given by 23 June 2023 and inspection by 30 June 2023. These deadlines were not met by the active respondents. On 1 July 2023, the fifth respondent served notice that R & H Lawyers LLP had ceased to act for him and he would henceforth be acting in person. On 3 July 2023, all the respondents (except the fifth) applied for relief from sanctions and an extension of time of 30 days in which to complete disclosure. In their notice, they estimated 20 minutes for the hearing of the application. The petitioners’ solicitors said this was inadequate. It was listed for hearing on 10 August 2023. On 7 July 2023, the active respondents (except the fifth) applied for security for costs to be provided by the third petitioner (a limited company). This application was subsequently withdrawn.

On 13 July 2023 the petitioners applied for a variation of my directions to allow an extension of 28 days for the filing and service of witness statements and the exchange of expert reports. On 19 July 2023 DJ Wales made this order on the papers, without a hearing. On 26 July 2023 the active respondents (except the fifth) applied for a variation of that order.

At the hearing before me on 10 August 2023, the petitioners were represented by Andrew Marsden of counsel, and the first to fourth and sixth to eighth respondents were represented by Lisa Freeman of counsel. I granted relief from sanctions to the first to fourth and sixth to eighth respondents and amended dates for disclosure accordingly. I further extended the date for exchange of witness statements of fact. On 8 September 2023, but this time by consent, I again extended the date for exchange of witness statements of fact, and also extended the time for exchange of expert reports. On 28 September 2023 DJ Wales amended his order of 19 July 2023 (by consent of all parties except the fifth respondent).