Reid (Formerly Trading As Reid Minty) v Edwards & Ors

Reid (Formerly Trading As Reid Minty) v Edwards & Ors

The applications to adjourn the trial and to order concurrent trials were refused because the medical evidence did not establish that Mr Reid could not prepare for or attend the trial, and because there was insufficient overlap of issues or evidence between Capita 1 and Capita 2 to justify a joint trial. Furthermore, the concurrency application was made too late without satisfactory explanation, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants outweighed any potential benefit of a joint trial.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Stephen Reid (formerly trading as Reid Minty); Claimant: RMPI LLP (formerly known as Reid Minty LLP); Defendant: Simon Peter Edwards; Defendant: Mark O’Shaughnessy; Defendant: Derek Thompson; Defendant: ProLegal Limited; Defendant: Capita Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract/employment) / Interlocutory Applications (adjournment of Trial, Consolidation/concurrency of Actions)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Consolidation of Actions, Case Management, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Inducement of Breach, Intellectual Property (database Right)
Civil Procedure Contract Law Employment Law Adjournment of Trial Consolidation of Actions Case Management Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Stephen Reid (formerly trading as Reid Minty)

Claimant

RMPI LLP (formerly known as Reid Minty LLP)

Claimant

Simon Peter Edwards

Defendant

Mark O’Shaughnessy

Defendant

Derek Thompson

Defendant

ProLegal Limited

Defendant

Capita Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract/employment) / Interlocutory Applications (adjournment of Trial, Consolidation/concurrency of Actions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of Capita 1 should be adjourned on medical grounds relating to Mr Reid's incapacity
  2. 2 Whether Capita 1 and Capita 2 should be tried together (concurrently)
  3. 3 Whether the trial date for Capita 1 should be vacated to allow Capita 2 to catch up for a joint trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to adjourn the trial and to order concurrent trials were refused because the medical evidence did not establish that Mr Reid could not prepare for or attend the trial, and because there was insufficient overlap of issues or evidence between Capita 1 and Capita 2 to justify a joint trial. Furthermore, the concurrency application was made too late without satisfactory explanation, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants outweighed any potential benefit of a joint trial.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adjourn the trial of Capita 1 on medical grounds is dismissed.
  • Application for Capita 1 and Capita 2 to be tried together (concurrently) is dismissed.