Special circumstances warrant modular trial in long-running shareholders’ dispute

Whether remaining issues in long-running case should be heard in unitary or modular hearing - third named Defendant seeks to have issues determined in modules pursuant to Order 63A, rule 5 - Court entitled to give such directions regarding conduct of proceedings as appears convenient for the determination of the proceedings in a manner which is ‘just, expeditious and likely to minimise the costs’ - other Defendants support application - Plaintiff resists it - proceedings concern shareholders' dispute in Blackrock Hospital Limited ("BHL") - first issue: Plaintiff alleges conspiracy on the part of the shareholders to damage his economic interest - second issue: third Defendant counterclaims that it is owed €22m from the Plaintiff on the basis that it has acquired the loan agreement and guarantee from the bank that originally financed the Plaintiff's purchase of shares in BHL - third issue relates to consequences of a change of control in the third Defendant - fourth issue concerns a dividend which the Plaintiff says is due to him and which, as part of the conspiracy claim, the Defendants have refused to pay to him - unitary trial is standard form - Court may direct modular trial however where, inter alia, there are "special or unusual circumstances" that mean that such a trial is preferable - Court notes that one judge has already recused himself on the application of the third named Defendant - Court finds that first consideration as to how to proceed with the trial, given the extraordinary length of time the proceedings have been in the Commercial Court, is how best to use taxpayers’ funds which finance scarce court resources - Court notes that there have been numerous judgments on pre-trial matters in these proceedings and all or nearly all have been appealed - Court finds that it is just, expeditions and likely to minimise costs and expense to the taxpayer if the trial is heard in modular format whereby: module 1 will be the dividend claim, module 2 will be the change of control claim; module 3 will be the conspiracy claim (to include re-payment claim) - court refuses to set-down hearing date on the basis that this decision may be appealed by one or other of the parties - Court comments that, no less than in the case of impecunious lay litigants who use up valuable court resources to the detriment of the public, it is unsatisfactory that wealthy litigants who are in a position to fund proceedings such that they can be drawn out for extremely lengthy periods can lay claim to scarce court resources - court notes in this regard that it is highly unusual for proceedings to be in the Commercial Court for the time that these have, namely 4 years - Court requests that the parties, and their lawyers who have an overriding duty to the Court, to seriously consider mediation.