[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

In general terms, it is clearly desirable to avoid the same or similar issues being tried in two or more different actions. The drawbacks are obvious. Trying the same issue twice is inherently wasteful. It involves duplication of time, effort and cost. There is a risk of inconsistent or apparently inconsistent outcomes. Difficulties can and often do arise, however, in finding a way to manage two cases so that issues common to both of them are tried together, fairly and conveniently. Often, the actions will be proceeding at different speeds, so that tying them to one another leads to the slowing down of the more advanced action. That is not the position here, where the actions are at closely similar stages of preparation for trial. Another difficulty that can arise is that the common issues may form only a small part of the overall picture in the actions."

"…take steps to coordinate case management in the two cases with a view to minimising the risk of factual issues being tried twice with different evidence or argument so as to duplicate court time to the detriment of other court users, and give rise to a risk of conflicting decisions."

"Concurrent actions involving overlapping issues and parties are a common feature of the litigation landscape. The English court will not take a blinkered approach to the case management issues that inevitably arise. It will strive to avoid or minimise duplication of effort and cost and, in particular, any risk of inconsistent outcomes or findings. That is no less true where one of the actions is for defamation. These are often accompanied by other, related actions. Various case management techniques have been deployed over the years, including an interim stay of proceedings, orders for sequential trials, and transfer from one Division to another. The Civil Procedure Rules laid new emphasis on the court's case management role. Its ability to perform that role flexibly in defamation cases was enhanced in 2014 when Parliament abolished the presumption that these would be tried by jury. Even before that a concurrent trial by judge alone of common factual issues in two separate libel claims was directed and successfully conducted: see Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Rowland v Mitchell [2014] EWHC 2615 (QB) and [2014] EWHC 4014 and 4015 (QB). The judge's assessment that it was unlikely these claims would 'be case managed together, or even with a real eye on one another' was plainly wrong. The strong probability is that the court's approach would have been carefully co-ordinated."

".no easy rule of thumb to assist the court to decide who should go first... It is a matter of discretion, and the court must have regard to the particular circumstances and facts, and likely timetable of the individual case."

The burden lies on the applicant seeking a stay to demonstrate through cogent evidence, that there are sound reasons for a stay in the circumstances of the particular case. (Paragraph 11)

The litigants’ rights, including the defendant's right, pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have the issues determined by a court of competent jurisdiction within a reasonable time. (Paragraphs 5, 12 and 29)

Whether the parallel proceedings would be determinative of the issues in the litigation to be stayed, or at least a significant proportion of them. (Paragraph 13)

A delay in the order of three years since the date of publication would be undesirable:

In this regard, Eady J also emphasised Parliament's decision to impose a one-year limitation period.

"29. There would surely be a considerable 'chilling effect' impinging upon a journalist's rights under Article 10 of the European Convention if, when he is sued for defamation…. he is to be frustrated in putting forward his defence for any significant period of time."

"Much will depend on which proceedings were started first, how far the defamation action has progressed, whether the overlapping issues are more suitable for determination in the defamation or in the parallel proceedings, and the extent to which, if at all, the parallel proceedings will assist in the determination of issues in the defamation proceedings."