header-logo header-logo

Disclosure

24 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker and another [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 137 (Feb)

The Chancery Division dismissed, in part, an application, under CPR 31.17, for an order for disclosure and inspection, against a person (a solicitor) who was not party to the main proceedings. Among other things, the court held that it was not a proper use of the procedure, under CPR 31.17 to make such an application in circumstances where those documents could be obtained from the defendants in the main proceedings, and where the reason for making the application was to obtain the documents prior to a hearing of, and to resist, applications by defendants in the main proceedings, and because it was perceived to be easier to route to obtaining disclosure of those documents. Disclosure, subject to conditions was granted in respect of one class of documents on the ground that it was necessary fairly to dispose of the claim or to save costs.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll