The Supreme Court has set aside an order directing a modular trial of Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited’s claim against PNC Global Investment Servicing (Europe) Limited, now known as BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (International) Limited. It remitted to the High Court the question of whether one limitation issue should be tried separately.
The dispute concerns administrative services PNC provided to Weavering, which is now in liquidation. The judgment says that in 2009 the fund had no substantial assets despite reported net asset valuations showing significant holdings. Weavering alleges breach of contract, breach of duty and misrepresentation, and claims damages apparently exceeding €300 million. The Supreme Court stressed that this appeal did not concern the substance of those claims.
PNC had sought an early hearing of eight issues, including the effect of contractual time limits and exclusions, and whether findings in related Cayman Islands proceedings involving Weavering’s former directors affected the Irish case. The High Court ordered those issues to be heard in a first module. Weavering appealed that case-management order.
Giving judgment on 4 December 2012, Mr Justice Clarke said the proposed module’s scope was insufficiently precise. Several issues paired questions about what the contract meant with questions about how its terms applied to the facts. In the Supreme Court’s view, deciding the contractual questions only in the abstract might achieve little; applying them could require detailed factual analysis that would undermine the proposed separation. The Court reached a similar view about the Cayman proceedings issues, which could depend on evidence in the Irish case.
The Court allowed the appeal and discharged the modular-trial order. It did not decide the underlying contractual questions, the merits of Weavering’s claim, or whether it was bound by findings in the Cayman proceedings. Nor did it rule out a modular trial later: it said a differently framed application could be considered as the proceedings progressed.
The Court also left open whether issue 1(b)—whether the contractual 12-month limit ran from service of the proceedings—could be heard as a stand-alone issue. Weavering’s counsel had accepted that if this issue were decided against the fund, the entire case would end. The Supreme Court remitted that question to the High Court, which would decide whether to list it separately.