There are three steps in every case where a party seeks disclosure from a third party: ‘(1) First it has to be shown that the documentation is likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of the respondent. The word ‘likely’ has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England No. 4 [2003] 1 WLR 2010 as meaning ‘may well’.
(2) The second requirement under Part 31.17 is that disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs.
(3) The third requirement is the exercise of a residual discretion that the court must exercise even if the first two hurdles are overcome in deciding to order the disclosure sought. (See Frankson v. The Home Office [2003] 1 WLR 1952). In exercising that residual discretion the court has to consider the balance of convenience and whether the order would infringe third parties’ rights of privacy and matters of that kind including the pubic interest.
Judges:
Vos J
Citations:
Unreported, 3 February 2010
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others, HM Treasury, v HM Treasury, The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 4) CA 7-Aug-2002
The claimants had suffered having lost deposits with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. They claimed their losses from the respondents as regulators of the bank, for negligence and misfeasance in public office. The action was based upon . .
Cited – Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same CA 8-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Litigation Practice
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.443851
