Stay of proceedings pending related appeal (High Court)

Practical Law UK Legal Update Case Report 9-520-4399 (Approx. 3 pages)

Stay of proceedings pending related appeal (High Court)

by PLC Dispute Resolution

In Barnes v Black Horse Ltd [2012] EWHC 1950 (QB), the High Court analysed the factors relevant to a stay of proceedings, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court in proceedings raising parallel issues. (Free access).

Speedread

The High Court has granted a stay of two claims, pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Harrison v Black Horse [2011] EWCA Civ 1128. In Harrison, which concerned the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI), the Court of Appeal dismissed claims based on alleged breach of the unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB).

The judge held that, although the detailed issues in Harrison were not necessarily identical to those that arose in the current claims, the decision of the Supreme Court was likely to be highly relevant to their outcome. There was, therefore, an "obvious advantage" in waiting for the conclusion of the Harrison appeal before proceeding further, and this outweighed any factors militating against a stay.

The decision provides a good example of the factors that the court will take into account when deciding whether to grant a stay pursuant to its general power under CPR 3.1(2)(f). (Barnes v Black Horse Ltd [2012] EWHC 1950.)

In March 2012, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in Harrison v Black Horse [2011] EWCA Civ 1128, a case concerned with the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI), in which the Court of Appeal dismissed claims based on alleged breach of the unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB) (see Legal updates, Court of Appeal hands down emphatic judgment in Harrison and another v Black Horse Ltd, and Supreme Court grants leave to appeal in Harrison and another v Black Horse Ltd).

In the current proceedings, HHJ Waksman QC (sitting as a High Court judge) granted an application under CPR 3.1(2)(f) to stay two PPI mis-selling claims pending the Supreme Court's decision in Harrison. Although the detailed issues in Harrison were not necessarily identical to those in the current claims, the decision of the Supreme Court was likely to be highly relevant to their outcome. There was, therefore, an "obvious advantage" in waiting for the conclusion of the Harrison appeal before proceeding further.

Noting that the court's power to stay was to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective, the judge took into account the following factors:

The Harrison appeal would be the first time that the unfair relationship provisions had come before the Supreme Court. The court was likely to give general guidance on PPI mis-selling claims and would certainly be relevant to the current proceedings. It was notable that the claimants were unwilling, if the trial proceeded now, to undertake not to seek permission to appeal on the basis of the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision.
Even if some individual elements of the claims might, strictly, fall outside the scope of the appeal in Harrison, there was no sensible way of splitting them off and allowing them to proceed alone. On any view, the Supreme Court decision would provide a proper focused basis for considering the true scope of the evidence and the factual findings which the court at first instance would be required to make.
Proportionality was a key factor. The claims here were modest, and it was therefore particularly important, from the point of view of both the parties and the court, to avoid incurring unnecessary time or costs. In this connection, the judge referred expressly to the forthcoming Jackson reforms.
Staying the proceedings would involve no significant prejudice to the claimants, and was unlikely to affect the evidence. By contrast, refusing the stay would prejudice the defendant in terms of the costs of unnecessary proceedings.

Case: Barnes v Black Horse Ltd [2012] EWHC 1950.

End of Document

Also Found In

Resource ID 9-520-4399

Published on 18-Jul-2012

Resource Type Legal update: case report

Jurisdictions

England
Wales