PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
At a case management Preliminary Hearing it was determined that three substantive issues, and strike-out and deposit order applications, should be considered at a public Preliminary Hearing. That further hearing duly took place, evidence was presented and submissions made. The Judge then reserved her decision. In that decision she set out her analysis of aspects of the evidence, and made certain findings of fact, but came to the conclusion that she could not determine the preliminary issues without two other Respondents being first joined to the proceedings.
The Judge erred in law in so deciding, principally because (a) the substantive issue having been set down for a Preliminary Hearing, and heard at that Hearing, the Judge was obliged to make findings of fact, on the basis of the evidence presented, and determine them, as best she could. She had not identified any material change in circumstances or other exceptional reason to justify a change of course; and (b) she had taken her decision without the parties being made aware that she was considering doing so, and they had not had a fair opportunity to make submissions on that proposed course.
[2020] UKEAT 0134 – 19 – 1501
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.650591