“This will minimise Samyung’s on-going costs of defending the claim but is risky. Those risks include, UKHO obtaining a judgment against Samyung in a greater amount than if the claim was defended, the enforceability of that judgment in South Korea, the potential ramifications for Samyung’s business of an enforceable judgment and Samyung’s ability to pay. If Samyung were to consider withdrawing from defending the claim, then before that decision was made, we would recommend that they obtain legal advice as to the ramifications of an enforceable judgment for their business, including whether those business risks can be best managed through rehabilitation proceedings, such that the claim against Samyung must stop/ any judgment obtained cannot be enforced.”
“…the Administrator, Mr Suh and the CRO, Mr Hong, have been removed from their roles within the Rehabilitation as the Rehabilitation has ceased. Samyung have made a further application for Rehabilitation Proceedings, and we await a further update on this from Samyung including confirmation of the new Administrator and CRO … As such, we notify you that we are currently without instruction within the UKHO Proceedings.”
“…before making conditional orders, particularly orders for the striking out of statements of case or the dismissal of claims or counterclaims, the judge should consider carefully whether the sanction being imposed is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. Of course, it is impossible to foresee the nature and effect of every possible breach and the party in default can always apply for relief, but a conditional order striking out a statement of case or dismissing the claim or counterclaim is one of the most powerful weapons in the court’s case management armoury and should not be deployed unless its consequences can be justified. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which such an order could properly be made for what were described in Keen Phillips v Field as ‘good housekeeping purposes’.”
“The importance of litigants obeying orders of court is self-evident. Once a court order is disobeyed, the imposition of a sanction is almost always inevitable if court orders are to continue to enjoy the respect which they ought to have. And, if persistence in the disobedience would lead to an unfair trial, it seems, at least in the absence of special circumstances, hard to quarrel with a sanction which prevents the party in breach from presenting (in the case of a claimant) or resisting (in the case of a defendant) the claim. And, if the disobedience continues notwithstanding the imposition of a sanction, the enforcement of the sanction is almost inevitable, essentially for the same reasons. Of course, in a particular case, the court may be persuaded by special factors to reconsider the original order, or the imposition or enforcement of the sanction.”
“…There is nothing in the rules, or in the decided cases, to limit the power to specify the consequences of failure to comply with an “unless order” which prevents the making of an order in the terms of the order made here. Precisely how the District Judge sought to achieve compliance by the [defendant] with the court’s order was a matter for his discretion. While it is clear that a judgment for damages to be assessed in the ordinary course requires the claimant to prove his damage and that there are procedural provisions to enable that process to be carried through, that does not mean that a defendant may not be deprived of the benefit of that process if he chooses to conduct himself, as this [defendant] did, in a manner calculated to frustrate the conduct of the proceedings to his own advantage.”