The Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
BEFORE:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)
----------------------
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED
Claimant
- and -
JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT
AND OTHERS
Defendants
----------------------
MR DALBY SC appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR KIRBY QC appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
MR DOUGHERTY appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant
----------------------
JUDGMENT
(Approved)
----------------------
Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol, BS32 4NE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
JUDGE PELLING:
This is an application for permission to appeal. The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of success. I am satisfied there is no realistic prospect of success for the following reasons.
I have applied the principles of law which are entirely conventional. The only issue in respect of which it might be argued there is a novel point, concerns the degree to which, if at all, documents referred to in documents attached to witness statements, affidavits, and the like should themselves be the subject of disclosure by reason of being impliedly mentioned.
As to that, first of all I consider there is no realistic prospect that the Court of Appeal reaching the conclusion that a document mentioned in the document attached has been sufficiently mentioned for the purposes of the rule. Secondly I made clear that if and to the extent that was the basis on which the application was advanced, it would be neither reasonable nor proportionate.
In those circumstances, as is seems to me this was an application which depended upon the application of entirely conventional principles. It was an application that was incidentally grossly overblown.
The application for permission to appeal is refused.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol BS32 4NE
Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
This transcript has been approved by the Judge