HT-2025-000079 - [2025] EWHC 2634 (TCC)

The proceedings were commenced on 17^th March 2025 but it was not until 15^th August 2025 that the Defendant applied for the lifting of the automatic suspension. The Claimant’s application for expedition did not come until 26^th September 2025.

The Claimant says that the Defendant delayed in seeking to lift the suspension and that account should be taken of this when considering the force of the Defendant’s arguments. For its part, the Defendant says that the application for expedition is a tactical ploy made at a late stage. It also criticizes the Claimant for the fact that it was only on 29^th September 2025 that the Claimant expressly confirmed that it would provide a cross-undertaking in damages if the automatic suspension were to remain in place.

The parties sensibly and properly sought to resolve the claim by agreement and the proceedings were stayed for one month from 26^th March 2025 to enable discussions for that purpose. Neither party is to be criticized in relation to that period. On 11^th June 2025 the Defendant sought the Claimant’s agreement to the lifting of the suspension. Correspondence followed. I do not need to address the detail of the various exchanges and it suffices to say that the Claimant raised a number of issues to which it sought a response in order to consider whether to agree to the lifting of the suspension. On 1^st August 2025 the Defendant informed the Claimant that it was preparing an application for the lifting of the automatic suspension and invited the Claimant to provide a cross-undertaking in damages. Although the Claimant did not expressly decline to provide such a cross-undertaking it was not until 29^th September 2025 that its willingness to do so was stated expressly.

It clearly would have been possible for the Defendant to have made its application for the lifting of the automatic suspension earlier but there was not a delay such as to have an impact on the issues I am to consider and still less such as to indicate that the Defendant does not genuinely believe that the lifting is desirable. The Defendant’s application to lift the automatic suspension did not come “out of the blue” nor after a period of inaction but after there had been attempts in correspondence to obtain a consensual lifting. The fact that the application was not made earlier does not detract from such force as the Defendant’s arguments otherwise have. Similarly, it cannot credibly be suggested that the Claimant is not in a position to substantiate its cross-undertaking and any failure to proffer that undertaking expressly at an earlier stage does not cast doubt on its adequacy. It is right that as a matter of fact the Claimant’s expedition application was triggered by the Defendant’s application for the lifting of the suspension and was a riposte thereto. It will, nonetheless, be necessary to consider the potential for expedition of the claim as a whole when assessing the Defendant’s application and in particular when considering the balance of convenience.