The High Court has directed that a commission dispute between Action Alarms Limited, trading as Action Security Systems, and Emmet O’Rafferty and Top Security Limited proceed to a full rehearing on oral evidence, unless the parties agree otherwise. It also refused an adjournment and confirmed a provisional hearing date, though the judgment gives conflicting years for that date.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached a contract requiring them to pay commission for customers connected to the defendants’ monitoring system. The judgment does not decide that claim.
The action began in March 2014 and was set down for trial in May 2019. Pilkington J. heard the case over seven days in November 2019, with judgment reserved in December. After Pilkington J. became indisposed before finalising judgment, the case was reassigned to Humphreys J. in October 2021 for a fresh hearing.
The plaintiff opposed a complete rehearing, first proposing that the case wait until Pilkington J. could deliver judgment. It also proposed that the new hearing use the existing transcript without further oral evidence. The court said that waiting would not meet the obligation to determine the litigation promptly.
Humphreys J. accepted that the court has inherent jurisdiction to rehear a case on transcript, with particular witnesses recalled if credibility issues arise, where that serves the interests of justice. But he said that approach should be treated cautiously, noting the absence of a supporting rule or statute in this context and the value of seeing witnesses give evidence in person.
The court therefore kept a full rehearing on oral evidence as the default, while allowing the parties to agree otherwise. It encouraged them to narrow the issues. The plaintiff’s counsel had an overlapping commitment on the proposed date, but the court said that was not sufficient reason to adjourn, particularly as the case was approaching its eighth anniversary.
The final paragraph confirms the provisional hearing date but states it as 11 January 2021, while the earlier discussion identifies it as 11 January 2022. The judgment does not resolve that discrepancy.