Agents' Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd (t/a Gascoigne Halman) & Anor [2019] EWHC 3104 (Ch) (22 November 2019)

Agents' Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd (t/a Gascoigne Halman) & Anor [2019] EWHC 3104 (Ch) (22 November 2019)

The application for further or extended disclosure failed because the applicant did not demonstrate that the existing disclosure was unreasonable or disproportionate, nor that varying the order was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. The court found the defendants' search methodology and keyword parameters to be reasonable and proportionate given the size of the document universe and the issues in dispute.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3104 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant and Applicant: Agents' Mutual Limited; First Defendant and Respondent: Gascoigne Halman Limited t/a Gascoigne Halman; Second Defendant and Respondent: Connells Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extended Disclosure in Ongoing High Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial of Non Competition Issues
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Extended Disclosure, Electronic Disclosure, Proportionality in Disclosure, Competition Appeal Tribunal Procedure
Civil Procedure Competition Law Disclosure Extended Disclosure Electronic Disclosure Proportionality in Disclosure Competition Appeal Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agents' Mutual Limited

Claimant and Applicant

Gascoigne Halman Limited t/a Gascoigne Halman

First Defendant and Respondent

Connells Limited

Second Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extended Disclosure in Ongoing High Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial of Non Competition Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' disclosure was adequate and proportionate under CPR 51 PD U
  2. 2 Whether further or extended disclosure should be ordered under CPR 51 PD U §§17 or 18
  3. 3 Whether the search methodology and keyword parameters used by the defendants were sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further or extended disclosure failed because the applicant did not demonstrate that the existing disclosure was unreasonable or disproportionate, nor that varying the order was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. The court found the defendants' search methodology and keyword parameters to be reasonable and proportionate given the size of the document universe and the issues in dispute.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extended and/or specific disclosure is dismissed.