Handling dependent casesTimes 14 August
7.191The outcome of one case may depend on the outcome of another. The circumstances may be unique to an individual case. For example: an appeal may be stayed to await the outcome of related judicial review proceedings. Or the circumstances may relate to a number of cases.
7.192The rules of procedure provide two powers to deal with these possibilities. The case management power to stay is appropriate in all cases.
1See: UTR r5(3)(j); GRC Rules r5(3)(j); HESC Rules r5(3)(j); IAC Rules r4(3)(j); Lands Rules r5(3)(j); PC Rules rr6(3)(m) and 39; SEC Rules r5(3)(j); Tax Rules r5(3)(j); WPAFC Rules r5(3)(j). If a number of cases is involved, the case management power in respect of lead cases may also be appropriate.
2See: UTR r5(3)(b); GRC Rules r5(3)(b); HESC Rules r5(3)(b); Lands Rules r5(3)(b); PC Rules r6(3)(b); SEC Rules r5(3)(b); Tax Rules r5(3)(b); WPAFC Rules r5(3)(b). There is no equivalent power in the IAC Rules.Staying proceedings
7.193If proceedings are stayed, no further action is taken in them until the stay is lifted. The proceedings are held in abeyance. This is an efficient way of dealing with cases whose disposal must await a decision in other proceedings.
7.194Tribunals do not have inherent power to stay proceedings for abuse of process. This power must be conferred, either expressly or by implication.
3R (Harpers Leisure International Ltd) v Guildford Borough Council (2009) Times 14 August.7.195As a case management power, it is not appropriate to stay proceedings as a way of effectively disposing of them.
7.196Staying is different from postponing and adjourning.
4See chapter 8. Those processes relate to the hearing of the case. They do not halt the proceedings. They are a step in the proceedings that depend on whether the case is ready for hearing or the tribunal is ready to decide it. However, in practice, the powers overlap. For example: a party who has a criminal case pending may apply for listing to be deferred, for a hearing to be postponed or for the proceedings to be stayed. The practical effect is the same.
Lead cases
7.197If the outcome of a number of cases may depend on the outcome of an individual case, it may be appropriate to await the outcome of that case. That case should be treated as a lead case and the related cases should be stayed. All tribunals have the case management power to treat a case as a lead case. Some rules of procedure make specific provision for the procedure to be followed in respect of lead cases;
5See: GRC Rules r18; PC Rules r23; SEC Rules r18; Tax Rules r18; WPAFC Rules r18. others do not. Moreover, the express provision only applies if the lead case is before the same tribunal. It does not apply if the lead case is before a higher tribunal or court. If, for whatever reason, the lead case provisions do not apply, they nonetheless provide a model for directions under the tribunal’s general powers.
7.198The lead case procedure provides a convenient and efficient means of managing and then deciding the related cases. The related cases are stayed until the lead case has been decided. They are then decided in accordance with the lead case unless a party can persuade the tribunal that that decision does not apply.
Other approaches
7.199Staying is not the only approach that can be taken to blocks of related cases. In some cases, the decision-maker has power to direct the tribunal to decide the cases on a particular assumption of what the law is.
6See chapter 15. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, the decision-maker has power to correct the mistake. Another possibility is that the tribunal could decide the cases on the law as it is and, if necessary, set them aside under its review power
7See chapter 15. when the law is authoritatively established. This approach is only appropriate if it appears that the outcome of the lead case can be predicted with confidence.