Court examines procedural delays and recusal in complex property dispute

5 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court addresses procedural delays and recusal application in a complex property dispute involving multiple parties

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, addressed a complex case involving procedural delays and a recusal application in a property dispute between Abbotsley Limited and Vivien Inez Saunders against Pheasantland Limited and other defendants. The judgment, handed down remotely, followed a two-day hearing on 6 and 7 January 2025.

Background

The case involved applications made by the claimants on 28 November 2024, including a request for recusal, transfer of proceedings, and an adjournment of the trial. The procedural history was marked by delays, including a failure to list a Costs and Case Management Conference (CCMC) in June 2024, which contributed to the claimants' application for an adjournment.

Recusal Application

The claimants sought the recusal of HHJ Walden-Smith, alleging apparent bias due to perceived disparities in treatment during previous hearings and the handling of procedural matters. The judge rejected the application, finding no basis for apparent bias, and emphasised that the delays and procedural issues were administrative and did not indicate bias.

Procedural Delays

The court acknowledged the procedural delays, including the late issuance of trial dates and the failure to list the CCMC. These delays were attributed to administrative oversights, and the judge expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to the parties. The court emphasised the importance of addressing these issues to ensure a fair trial.

Transfer and Adjournment

The claimants also sought a transfer of the proceedings to the Business and Property Court in London, citing delays in the Peterborough District Registry. The court found no justification for the transfer, noting that the parties and witnesses were primarily located within the region. However, the court granted the adjournment, rescheduling the trial to commence on 29 April 2025, to allow adequate preparation time for all parties.

Directions and Future Hearings

During the hearing, the court issued directions to facilitate the consolidated trial, including orders for disclosure, witness statements, and trial bundles. Additional hearings were scheduled for February 2025 to address preliminary, case management, and appeal issues.

Conclusion

The judgment highlighted the challenges of managing complex multi-party litigation and the need for efficient court administration. The court's decision to grant an adjournment underscored its commitment to ensuring a fair trial, despite procedural setbacks.