Deutsche Bank AG & Ors v Unitech Global Ltd & Ors
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE TEARE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case centered around a dispute involving rescission as a remedy and whether the court should order the defendants to make a substantial interim payment. Initially, the court ruled in favor of the claimants based on Cooke J's decision, which was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, establishing the availability of rescission. The claimants' application for payment into court or an interim payment was dismissed, as the court found no basis under CPR Parts 24, 3, or 25 to justify such an order. The judgment emphasized the narrow scope for setting aside previous rulings and highlighted the requirements for conditional orders and interim payments under the CPR.
Judgment
Mr Justice Teare :
The nature of the case
I gratefully adopt the summary of this case given by Longmore LJ at [2013] EWCA Civ 1372 , paragraphs 12-21.
The circumstances which have given rise to this application
Between 22 and 30 July 2013 I heard arguments on several interlocutory applications in this matter. On 20 September 2013 I gave judgment ( [2013] EWHC 2793 (Comm) ). The resulting orders were made on 1 October 2013. On 8 November 2013 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal ( [2013] EWCA Civ 1372 ) from an earlier interlocutory order of Cooke J ( [2013] EWHC 471 (Comm) ). The further interlocutory application now before me has been necessitated by the decision of the Court of Appeal. Whereas Cooke J. had held that the remedy of rescission was not available to the defendants the Court of Appeal held that it was. In my earlier judgment I had relied upon the decision of Cooke J. as creating an issue estoppel as to the non-availability of rescission and in consequence had (a) refused to grant the defendants permission to amend their pleading to raise a claim to rescission and (b) granted the claimants summary judgment. It is now apparent, in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal, that there was no such issue estoppel. On the contrary the issue estoppel is now to the contrary effect, namely, that the remedy of rescission is available to the defendants. In those changed circumstances the parties have returned to this court in order for this court to decide what to do in the light of those changed circumstances.
In counsel’s skeleton arguments there was considerable debate as to whether the appropriate course was for this court to give permission to appeal against such of my orders as were based on the issue estoppel arising out of Cooke J.’s judgment or to set aside those rulings in the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Reference was made to the several authorities bearing on this matter including Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518 . However, I formed the provisional view that whilst the court’s power to set aside its earlier rulings, rather than leave such matters to the Court of Appeal, will only be exercised in limited circumstances as discussed in the authorities the unusual circumstances of the present case justified the exercise of that power. It was common ground that any appeal from my rulings based upon Cooke J.’s judgment would be bound to succeed in the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision allowing