J90PE914 and K00LU633 - [2025] EWHC 2076 (KB)

In the course of providing spelling corrections, counsel for the claimants have drawn the court’s attention to paragraphs 8 and 25 of written submissions. I have already had to say in open court that the parties must understand that if a particular point is not dealt with, or if matters are not raised specifically in the course of the oral submissions, that does not mean that a point is being accepted. It is impossible in any case, and particularly in a case with this number of individual issues, for a judgment to expressly deal with all points. That is not a failing in the judgment and it will need to be understood that all submissions are taking into account when a determination is made.

The same applies with respect to points raised in submissions. It is for the judge to determine which points need to be dealt with and, while I have accepted that there are legal and factual issues between the parties which need to be dealt with, I am very concerned that the way in which this case is being conducted with a requirement that every single point, including bad points, is dealt with in specific detail is highly unusual and is evidence that the proceedings themselves are being used to wear down those who are seeking to defend themselves. It is a waste of court time and, while I am now dealing with these points, having already considered them once, I could of course have been dealing with other matters.

With respect to paragraphs 8 and 25, I have already said “I have considered with care the written submissions on this issue from both the first defendant and the claimants in response”. That did not mean “I have considered with care the written submissions on this issue from both the first defendant and the claimants in response save for paragraphs 8 and 25 of the claimants’ submissions”. The reason I did not need to waste time with dealing with these points expressly as my judgment only deals with the significant amount of costs wasted by the second claimant by reason of her conduct. Neither paragraph 8 or 25 have any impact upon issues of conduct of the second claimant: paragraph 8 deals with the financial difficulties of the first defendant, that is not relevant to the second claimant’s poor conduct and is something which can be considered after final judgment is given; paragraph 25 deals with the fact that more witnesses were called to support the first defendant’s defence, that it not relevant to the second claimant’s poor conduct and the court time wasted by her.

Consequently, the claimants can be assured that I did, and will always, consider all the points made by or on their behalf even if I do not write out each point and then state why I agree or disagree. That is simply not how a judgment is written.