8 May 2024
The Court directed that the petitioner’s strike-out summons and the Company’s summons for leave to adduce further evidence and to amend the notice of appeal be heard together with the appeal; the petitioner was granted leave to file any further evidence in response within 21 days; costs of the applications were reserved.
11 May 2023
Leave to adduce expert evidence was granted because the nature and objective value of FISH and SPR are central to the plaintiffs' claims, the subject matter falls within areas requiring specialised expertise, the proposed experts' qualifications were not challenged at this stage, and the court cannot be fully informed by the disclosed documents alone; consequential directions were ordered and the 2nd Defendant was permitted to adduce valuation evidence; the application to restrain further interlocutory applications was dismissed for lack of proper supporting evidence.
27 Oct 2016
The application to amend was refused because it was made too late without an acceptable explanation, it failed to comply with prior interlocutory directions and deadlines, and allowing the amendment at trial would cause prejudice to the respondents and their experts by forcing mid-trial re-examination of documents and evidence.
21 Oct 2002
The appeal was allowed in part: the Court found defendant's concern about mounting arrears and delay justified and that witness statements could reasonably be exchanged within 42 days, but refused to order trial before summer vacation 2003; instead the Court fixed a date for the setting down application as a milestone and ordered costs to follow the event.
30 Jul 1999
The judge exercised discretion to amend the agreed directions and ordered that the 2nd Defendant be excluded from filing any affidavit and not take an active part in the proceedings because the entire summons concerned the affairs of the 2nd Defendant, allegations indicated that the company was under control of other defendants and counsel for the 2nd Defendant could not identify specific issues requiring the company's active participation.
24 Mar 1999
The Court dismissed the appeal: Burrell J. correctly refused the requested directions because the issues about Lucky Man and post-petition pleadings had been previously decided, an E.G.M. would not serve a useful purpose so close to the hearing and would not answer the public interest ground, and no exceptional circumstances warranted a stay of proceedings.
5 Jun 1985
Given the appellants had not filed evidence and had been tardy, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in making comprehensive directions to progress the petition; the Court of Appeal refused admission of fresh evidence on appeal because R.S.C. conditions were not met and dismissed the appeal.