![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker & Anor [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch) (13 February 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/177.html Cite as: [2017] 4 WLR 42, [2017] WLR(D) 98, [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch), [2017] WTLR 729 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Buy ICLR report: [2017] 4 WLR 42]
[View ICLR summary: [2017] WLR(D) 98]
[Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
TWIN BENEFITS LIMITED |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) IAIN PAUL BARKER (2) CONFIANCE LIMITED |
Defendants |
|
- and - |
||
ALISON MEEK |
Respondent |
____________________
Stephen Hackett (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the Applicant
Simon Taube QC (instructed by Harcus Sinclair LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 2 February 2017
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
Introduction
Procedural history
Factual background
CPR rule 31.17(3)
"The Court may make an order under this rule only where
(a) the documents of which disclosure is sought are likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of one of the other parties to the proceedings; and
(b) disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs."
The classes of documents
a) open inter partes correspondence;
b) without prejudice inter partes correspondence;
c) documents disclosed to Ms Meek in relation to the proceedings;
d) court documents in relation to the proceedings;
e) communications between Ms Meek, Harcus and counsel; and
f) the deed of trust approved by Asplin J.
Ms Meek's grounds of opposition
i) Rule 31.17(3)(a) was not satisfied because Twin Benefits had failed to show that the documents were likely to support its case or adversely affect the Defendants' case. In essence, the application was a fishing expedition in the hope that disclosure might turn up something to support Twin Benefits' case.
ii) Furthermore, in the case of class e, rule 31.17(3)(a) was not satisfied because, even if the documents supported Twin Benefits' case, Twin Benefits would not be able to use them because they were the subject of LPP.
iii) In the case of classes a to d and f, rule 31.17(b) was not satisfied because Twin Benefits could obtain disclosure of them, to the extent that they were relevant, from the Defendants in the ordinary course of the proceedings, assuming that the Defendants were unsuccessful in their applications.
Classes a to d and f
Class e
Conclusion