BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 731 (Comm) (04 March 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/731.html
Cite as: [2022] EWHC 731 (Comm)

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EWHC 731 (Comm)
Case No: CL2021000532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

The Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
4 March 2022

B e f o r e :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)

____________________

MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED Claimant
- and -
JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT
AND OTHERS Defendants

____________________

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol, BS32 4NE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR DALBY SC appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR KIRBY QC appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
MR DOUGHERTY appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT (APPROVED)
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    JUDGE PELLING:

  1. This is an application for permission to appeal. The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of success. I am satisfied there is no realistic prospect of success for the following reasons.
  2. I have applied the principles of law which are entirely conventional. The only issue in respect of which it might be argued there is a novel point, concerns the degree to which, if at all, documents referred to in documents attached to witness statements, affidavits, and the like should themselves be the subject of disclosure by reason of being impliedly mentioned.
  3. As to that, first of all I consider there is no realistic prospect that the Court of Appeal reaching the conclusion that a document mentioned in the document attached has been sufficiently mentioned for the purposes of the rule. Secondly I made clear that if and to the extent that was the basis on which the application was advanced, it would be neither reasonable nor proportionate.
  4. In those circumstances, as is seems to me this was an application which depended upon the application of entirely conventional principles. It was an application that was incidentally grossly overblown.
  5. The application for permission to appeal is refused.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/731.html