Martin Hart & Ors. v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors.

Martin Hart & Ors. v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors.

Application dismissed because the claimants failed to sufficiently particularise their claims and demonstrate the relevance and proportionality of the documents sought; the court has jurisdiction under CPR 31.12 but discretion should not be exercised in claimants' favour.

Parties
Claimants: Martin Hart and others; Defendants: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and others; Twelfth Defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employers' Liability, Personal Injury / Application for Specific Disclosure Under CPR 31.12
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Case Management, Proportionality, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employers' Liability Disclosure Case Management Proportionality Relevance of Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employers' Liability, Personal Injury / Application for Specific Disclosure Under CPR 31.12

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order specific disclosure before standard disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the requested disclosure meets the relevance and proportionality requirements
  3. 3 Whether the application for disclosure is sufficiently particularised

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the claimants failed to sufficiently particularise their claims and demonstrate the relevance and proportionality of the documents sought; the court has jurisdiction under CPR 31.12 but discretion should not be exercised in claimants' favour.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants to pay the Twelfth Defendant's costs of and occasioned by the application under CPR 44.2