Dian AO v Davis, Frankel and Mead: QBD 2005

Application was made for the disclosure of documents from an earlier court case involving the defendants.
Held: The application as made was disallowed. The right thing to do was to identify the documents it sought with reasonable precision and then the court would grant or withhold permission in relation to specified documents. The degree of specification required could be satisfied by specifying a class of documents where there would not be difficulty on the facts in holding whether a document did, or did not, come within the relevant class.
Moore-Bick J
[2005] 1 WLR 2951
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPressdram Ltd v Whyte ChD 30-May-2012
The respondent had been involved in company director disqualification proceedings some 12 years earlier. The claimant, publisher of Private Eye sought disclosure of the associated court papers.
Held: The applicant had provided appropriate . .
CitedJames-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.472481