Wallace Smith Trust v Deloitte Haskins and Sells: CA 1997

If the party seeking discovery showed that the documents might be necessary for a fair disposal of the action, an order should normally only be refused after the court had examined the documents and considered them in the light of the material already in the applicant’s possession.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘Disclosure will be necessary if: (a) it will give ‘litigious advantage’ to the party seeking inspection . . and (b) the information sought is not otherwise available to that party by, for example, admissions or some other form of proceeding (e.g. interrogatories) or from some other source . . and (c) such order for disclosure would not be oppressive.’


Simon Brown LJ


[1997] 1 WLR 257


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBranson v Snowden; Branson v Gtech UK Corporation (a Body Corporate) and Rendine CA 3-Jul-1997
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The . .
CitedAndrew 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.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185966