The defendants had been given extended time to comply with an order for pre-action discovery. Leave to appeal had been granted, with a stay, but there was confusion as to whether expedition was also ordered. The current date had been fixed, but application was now made for that date to be vacated.
Held: The court would not proceed on the basis that expedition was ordered, but both sides wanted the issue resolved quickly. Sumitomo would not be greatly prejudiced by having to arrange a backup for counsel. The application was refused and the date fixed would remain.
Judges:
Wallr LJ
Citations:
[2002] 1 WLR 479, [2001] EWCA Civ 1471
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201339
