Being there part 7
Sometimes, the problem about being there in the right place at the right time arises even before the day of the court hearing.
Over 10 years ago, when I was still a junior, I had two cases listed in London in the same week. They were both important cases. The first was a one-day application in the commercial court against a senior banking silk. The second was a three-day case, an application which related to a point of European competition law. There I was also against a QC, a leading expert in the field who regularly advised the British government. Two heavy cases, against real heavyweight opponents. I couldn’t wait. The first case was due to take place on the Monday, the second on Wednesday-Friday. They were both involved matters, and I had already accepted (and prepared) the briefs in both cases the week before. There was a one-day gap between the cases and therefore no danger of them overlapping. Famous last words.
On the Friday afternoon of the week before the cases I received some enormously unwelcome news. The first was that the court was not going to be able to hear the first case on the Monday, and had moved it to the Tuesday. The second was that because the same point in that first case overlapped with a point in another matter in for application before the commercial court involving the same claimant bank (I was for the defendant), the two cases were to be heard together with a combined two-day estimate. I therefore now had the first case finishing after the second case was due to start.
Nor in those circumstances was there an easy solution. I had already accepted the briefs, and prepared them, in both cases. Both sets of solicitors took the view (reasonably and understandably) that I was committed to their particular case and it was too late to switch their particular case. I was not in a position to argue with this since I thought each solicitor was entirely correct in that viewpoint. If I had been either client I would have gone bonkers at the idea of such a late switch of the case. The problem was that that left me literally up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
My clerk therefore made efforts to get the second case moved back a day. When I was doing the first case I have to say it was somewhat uncomfortable not know whether or not he had succeeded.
The QC in the first case, who was as charming and polite as he was brilliant, told me before the case started that he understood I had a timing problem. A lesser opponent would have (fruitlessly) try to make the case last as long as possible in the spurious hope that the opponent would rush through their submissions to get the next case. That would not have happened. The golden rule is that you concentrate on the case you are doing.
This QC took an entirely different approach. He identified that there was one issue in my case which overlapped with the other case being heard with it, but that the other case had a second issue. We could deal with that first issue on both cases, and that would then mean that I was free to leave. That would mean we should still finish within the day (as in fact we did). It was a relief to come out of court knowing that I was going to be available for the next day.
As it happened I need not have worried. My clerk had succeeded in getting the next case dropped back a day. However, what are the odds that if he had failed my first case would not have finished in time? At least I was spared the consequences of a problem that was not of my making. Both cases went well, both results being of the “score draw” type and exceeding client expectations. It was certainly a relief to get into the second case and know that if anything went wrong it would be to do with the hearing rather than about whether I actually got to it.