![]() ![]() Smith J was satisfied that the claimant’s application was misconceived, in that the disclosure sought was not actually relevant to the pleaded issues in dispute. As such, Smith J ruled that his earlier February 2019 order should have been made on the basis of extended disclosure. In his judgment, Smith J applied the decision in UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd, which provided that the DPS applies to all relevant existing proceedings, including where a disclosure order had already been made under CPR 31, before the DPS came into force on 1 January 2019. These two procedural steps were allowed by an earlier procedural order of Smith J in February 2019, which also provided for standard disclosure. As such, and also because the claimant amended its pleaded case against the first defendant, the extent of issues in dispute had increased. A second defendant, Connells, had been joined in addition to the first defendant, Gascoigne Halman. Smith J highlighted that since the determination of the competition issues, the scope of the proceedings had changed. ![]() Smith J noted that standard disclosure had already been carried out by the parties during the course of determining the competition law issues, but was careful to emphasise that that disclosure had been general and not confined to the competition issues. At the hearing of this application on 30 October 2019, Smith J dismissed the application. In early October 2019, the claimant applied for extended disclosure, or the disclosure of specific documents or classes of document. A five day trial has now been listed before Marcus Smith J in March 2020 to determine the outstanding non-competition issues. Competition law issues in the case were transferred to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), whereas non-competition issues remained in the Chancery Division for later adjudication.ĬAT’s July 2017 judgment dealt with the competition issues, the rulings on which were upheld on a later appeal to the Court of Appeal. The claimant issued proceedings in February 2016 in the High Court Chancery Division. In Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd and another, Marcus Smith J dismissed the claimant’s application for extended or additional disclosure but not without making comments about the mandatory Disclosure Pilot Scheme (DPS) pursuant to PD 51U operating in the Business and Property Courts until 31 December 2020. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |