The £32m professional negligence claim brought by a property developer and its owner Stephen Beech against Manchester law firm Kuits was listed for three days pre-reading plus a trial commencing on 20 January. The parties had three experts each, and an additional eight lay witnesses were due to give evidence.
The claimants suggested the defendants be given one week to find a replacement and the trial be delayed by two or possibly three weeks. The defendants submitted they could not find someone within that time, and junior counsel had insufficient time to prepare. The claimants suggested they use the notes prepared by leading counsel, but the defendants countered ‘it was not the case that [junior counsel] could simply “learn the lines” as if in a play’.
The claimants argued their funders might refuse the extra funds required by the adjournment, which ‘would be grossly unfair and prejudicial’.
Adjourning the case this week, in Manchester Property Development Holdings and Stephen Beech v Kuit Steinart Levy [2025] EWHC 35 (Comm), however, Dame Clare Moulder said there were no grounds to suppose additional funding would not be granted.
Moreover, the issues dated back to 2016 so further delay was unlikely to have a ‘material impact’ on the quality of witness evidence, and she saw no reason ‘why further significant costs would be incurred’.
Dame Moulder said: ‘Our legal system is based on the oral presentation of evidence and submissions. Cross-examination plays a very significant role in our legal system in enabling the court to receive the best evidence from witnesses. Cross-examination of witnesses requires skill and extensive preparation… in the circumstances, the defendant could not have a fair trial on the current trial timetable.’
