Site icon swarb.co.uk

Landauer Ltd v Comins and Co (a firm): CA 14 May 1991

The first instance Judge had struck out a claim under the provisions of order 24 rule 16(1) in circumstances where a number of relevant documents did not appear on the plaintiffs list of documents and were found to have been destroyed, the destruction having taken place after the commencement of proceedings, and in respect of some of the documents, after the plaintiffs list of documents had been filed.
Held: ‘this is the first occasion on which a claim has been stuck out for breach of a discovery obligation’ The judge at first instance was ‘fully entitled to find that there was a serious risk that essential documents may have been destroyed in this case, as a result of which a fair trial of the action is no longer possible… .’ and ‘It may be that the submission means no more than this, that where documents have been deliberately suppressed, it may be relatively easy to draw the inference that they are highly material and that in the absence of those documents justice cannot be done. If that is all that was meant, then I would agree.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Lloyd

Citations:

Times 14-May-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLogicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd CA 5-Feb-1988
The agent required the contractual counterparty to pay a bribe of pounds 70,000 to an offshore account.
Held: The bribe was held to be recoverable by the principal whether the principal rescinded or affirmed the contract because it was a . .

Cited by:

CitedArrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
CitedArrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.211362

Exit mobile version