Hart & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 1090 (QB) (13 May 2022)

Hart & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 1090 (QB) (13 May 2022)

The court has jurisdiction to consider the application for specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 before standard disclosure, but the application fails because the claimants have not sufficiently particularised their claims to demonstrate the relevance and proportionality of the documents sought. The requests are too broad, lack specificity, and do not meet the requirements for targeted, relevant disclosure. The application is dismissed and costs awarded to the CPM.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1090
Parties
Claimants: Martin Hart and others; Defendants: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and others; Twelfth Defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (CPM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Specific Disclosure in Personal Injury Litigation (employers' Liability) / Interlocutory Application Prior to Standard Disclosure, Within Stayed Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Specific Disclosure, Pre Action Disclosure, Case Management, Proportionality, Relevance of Documents
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employers' Liability Disclosure Specific Disclosure Pre Action Disclosure Case Management Proportionality +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Hart and others

Claimants

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and others

Defendants

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (CPM)

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Specific Disclosure in Personal Injury Litigation (employers' Liability) / Interlocutory Application Prior to Standard Disclosure, Within Stayed Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 before standard disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant and proportionate to the pleaded or anticipated issues
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the requirements for specific or pre-action disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to consider the application for specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 before standard disclosure, but the application fails because the claimants have not sufficiently particularised their claims to demonstrate the relevance and proportionality of the documents sought. The requests are too broad, lack specificity, and do not meet the requirements for targeted, relevant disclosure. The application is dismissed and costs awarded to the CPM.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of requested documents
  • Claimants to pay the Twelfth Defendant's (CPM's) costs of and occasioned by the application