J90PE914 & K00LU633 - [2025] EWHC 2640 (KB)

At the end of the 19 days of evidence in this trial, it was raised by Counsel for the first defendant that, as a consequence of the many difficulties that had occurred during the course of the trial, including with respect to deficiencies in the disclosure undertaken by Ms Saunders and her attempts to mislead the court, it was not possible for the defendants to be given a fair trial and in the circumstances the first defendant would be applying to strike out the claims in both cases.

This was plainly a highly unusual step to take. The evidence was near complete after what had been an extremely difficult trial for the participants, including the lawyers, and an extraordinarily expensive trial in terms of time for the court and costs for the parties. The parties plainly needed resolution.

I made it clear that, while I would hear the application, I would be determining the issues on the basis of the evidence I had heard and the law that applied. That is necessary as, even if I found in favour of the application, the parties need to have answers with respect to the areas of dispute. Further, if I find for the first defendant on its application to strike out, but that was overturned on an appeal, then it was plainly necessary to have the court’s judgment on this extremely time consuming and expensive litigation. My findings on the evidence and determination on the various issues are contained in a separate judgment which is extremely lengthy, more than six times the length of a judgment I would normally give after a significant or complex case. I have explained in that judgment the reasons why.