The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against directions setting time limits for the remaining evidence in a long-running contract case, finding no unfairness to the plaintiff.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made during an ongoing trial. The case arises from the defendants’ termination of a contractual relationship in 2004. The plaintiff claims damages for breach of contract, including losses from alleged psychological or psychiatric injury. The defendants dispute that injury claim, arguing it is unknown to law.
The trial began in July 2019 with liability to be heard first and damages, or quantum, later. The plaintiff sought an adjournment because he was awaiting a psychiatric report. The High Court refused the adjournment but deferred the quantum issue. By the November 2022 hearing of a later case management motion, the plaintiff had still not arranged a consultation with a psychiatrist.
The defendants had sought directions about the evidence and also asked the High Court to strike out parts of the case. The High Court did not grant those requests at that stage. Instead, it imposed directions of its own: the remaining liability evidence was to fit within five days, divided equally between the parties, and any psychiatric report was to be obtained within two months.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that his proposed counter-motion had not been considered, that his allotted time was insufficient, that two months was too short to obtain the report and that the order would make the trial unfair. The Court of Appeal said the counter-motion had never been issued, although the High Court judge had considered its terms. It also noted that a later direction requiring witness statements could reduce the time needed for oral evidence and had made much of the appeal moot.
The appeal court said it would interfere with a case management order only where the directions created irremediable prejudice that the trial judge could not reasonably be expected to remedy. It found that threshold had not been met. The court also relied on the time already given to obtain the report: the plaintiff had told the court in July 2019 that it was in progress, and at the appeal hearing confirmed his GP had not yet identified a psychiatrist to approach.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It stated a provisional view that the defendants were entitled to their appeal costs because they had succeeded. The plaintiff was given 14 days to submit an alternative proposal on costs, with the defendants then having 14 days to respond. If neither submission changes the position, the proposed costs order will be made.