Medical Supplies And Services International Ltd vAcies Engineering Ltd & Anor
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- His Honour Judge Behrens
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the Claimant, a medical equipment manufacturer, alleging misuse of confidential information by Defendants, former employees. Multiple pre-trial orders and applications, including for disclosure and inspection of documents, were made. The key issue was whether the claim was struck out for breaching an 'unless' order, which was confirmed. The Claimant's request for relief from sanctions was denied, and the default costs certificate was upheld. The proceedings illustrate legal principles like automatic enforceability of 'unless' orders, the need for robustness in post-Jackson era, and the burden on non-compliant parties to seek relief.
Judgment
Judge Behrens:
1 Introduction
This case is currently listed for a 5 day trial commencing on the 12 th May 2014. It was listed for a pre-trial review on 2 nd April 2014. However, the Defendants contend that the claim has been struck out as a result of the breach of an “unless” order made on 17 th June 2013 and on 6 th March 2014 obtained a default costs certificate resulting from that strike out. Accordingly there are a number of matters that need to be decided before determining whether the trial can proceed.
In fact there are three interlinked applications by the Claimant and the Defendants:
An application dated 12 th March 2014 by the Claimant to set aside the default costs certificate that was issued by the court on the ground that there was no basis for an order that the Claimant pay the Defendants’ costs.
An application dated 17 th March 2014 by the Defendants for a declaration that the claim has been struck out as a result of breach of the “unless” order. In the alternative for an order that the claim form is struck pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2)(c) on the ground that there has been non compliance with a number of orders in the proceedings including an unless order.
An application dated 28 th March 2014 by the Claimant for relief from sanctions on the ground that the Claimant is not in breach of any order and that it would be disproportionate and not in the interests of justice to strike out the claim or to impose any sanction on the Claimant.
The applications are supported by 4 witness statements from Mr Webber (dated 12 th March 2014, 28 th March 2014, 1 st and 4 th April 2014), two witness statements from Mr Bower (dated 17 th March 2014 and 3 rd April 2014) and a witness statement from Mr Robinson (3 rd April 2014). Mr Webber and Mr Bower are the solicitors with conduct of the matter on behalf of the Claimant and the Defendants respectively.
A number of matters are common ground between the parties:
If the claim has not been struck out for breach of an “unless” order then the Defendants were not entitled to the default costs certificate and it must be set aside under CPR 47.12 (1).
The position is the same even if the court now strikes out the claim under CPR 3.2 (4)(c). The Defendants were not entitled to a default cost certificate at the time they filed the request under CPR 47.9 (4).
If the claim has been struck out but the court grants the Claimant relief from sanctions so as to enable the action to continue it would be appropri