Search Results for: Civil Procedure Rules 31.16(3)

Click the case name for better results:

Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001