HT-2023-000415 - [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC)

Fecha: 20-May-2024

“these proceedings”

(b)

“these proceedings”

19.

Turning to paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Order, the first question is as to the meaning of “these proceedings”. In Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2017] UKSC 23 the Supreme Court considered the meaning of “proceedings” in the context of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Lord Sumption addressed the point at [20]:

“The starting point is that as a matter of ordinary language one would say that the proceedings were brought in support of a claim, and were not over until the courts had disposed of that claim one way or the other at whatever level of the judicial hierarchy. The word is synonymous with an action.”

20.

And at [35] Lord Hodge stated:

“It is common ground that the word proceedings can bear a broad or a narrow interpretation, covering either the proceedings at one level of the court hierarchy... or the proceedings in the case at all levels of the hierarchy.”

21.

In the present case, the meaning of “these proceedings” in paragraph 4 of the Schedule is also informed by the phrase “all further proceedings in this action” which is to be found at paragraph 2 of the Order. The latter phrase is standard Tomlin order wording.

22.

In my judgment, applying Plevin, the term “these proceedings” in paragraph 4 refers to the action in which the Order was made, that is the enforcement action (or the enforcement proceedings) number HT-2021-LIV-000005. If the action had proceeded to a first instance hearing and then been appealed, those two hearings and the additional steps required to progress the case would together have constituted the proceedings. I regard this construction as straightforward and second nature to most lawyers.

23.

Dawnvale submitted that “these proceedings” should be given a wide construction and that the proposed second adjudication would become in some way part of the proceedings. Dr Sampson submitted that “proceedings” should be defined as including “the underlying dispute the subject matter of the adjudication including the finding of repudiatory breach”. I reject this submission. It would require the words “these proceedings” at paragraph 4 of the Schedule to bear a different meaning to “proceedings in this action” at paragraph (2) on the face of the Order. Furthermore, even if the second adjudication process were to be regarded as “proceedings”, I consider that they and any related enforcement action would be different proceedings, or a second “set” of proceedings. I therefore reject the submission that that the words “these proceedings” in paragraph 4 should be construed so as to include the new claim, a second adjudication and any legal action arising from it.