In a recent High Court ruling, solicitors engaged in a dispute over service timelines were found to be under no obligation to explain their stance to the opposing party.
His Honour Judge Cadwallader, sitting as a High Court judge, determined that the solicitors representing the claimants, Reed Smith, were correct in their understanding of the law and were “not required” to assist the opposing solicitors, Spencer West, who had misinterpreted the legal provisions.
The case centred on a claim for breach of directors’ duties. On 18 April 2024, Reed Smith contacted Spencer West, seeking their agreement for service of the particulars of claim via email. Spencer West responded, asserting the claimants were out of time; however, Reed Smith disagreed and expressed this in subsequent correspondence.
Despite filing and serving the particulars on Spencer West by traditional means on the same day, Reed Smith contested Spencer West’s assertion that the 14-day period for serving particulars ended on 29 March, given that the claim form was served on 15 March.
Spencer West prompted for a response from Reed Smith, emphasising the urgency of resolving the supposed timing dispute. Reed Smith maintained that Spencer West’s prior communication did not elicit any questions necessitating a response, asserting that the position had been made clear already.
The disagreement culminated in the claimants securing a default judgment without notice, which Spencer West subsequently challenged. They acknowledged the defence had a real prospect of success under the Denton test, but Judge Cadwallader highlighted the initial error made by Spencer West—failing to recognise the differing time limits applicable in the London Circuit Commercial Court.
Reed Smith was deemed to have no duty to clarify their legal reasoning to Spencer West. While parties involved in litigation are encouraged to aid the court’s overarching objectives, they are not obliged to assist each other in understanding legal technicalities.
The judge rebuffed the argument that Reed Smith acted unreasonably by not clarifying their position in response to Spencer West’s legitimate inquiry. He dismissed the notion that this omission constituted procedural gamesmanship, noting Reed Smith had neither misled Spencer West nor confirmed agreement with their position.
In conclusion, while the default judgment was initially granted against Spencer West, Judge Cadwallader ruled to set it aside, recognising that justice and the overarching legal objective would be best served by allowing the defence to proceed.
This High Court decision underscores the legal principle that solicitors are not bound to explain their reasoning to opposing parties, delineating the boundary between professional courtesy and legal obligation.
