Vannin Capital PCC v RBOS Shareholers Action Group Ltd & Ors

Vannin Capital PCC v RBOS Shareholers Action Group Ltd & Ors

The application to exclude SG UK from the disclosure obligations is refused because the Second Defendants agreed to the original order with knowledge of the relevant facts, the distinction between Corporate and Retail Defendants is justified, and the costs argument is unsubstantiated. The application by the Claimant for further searches of board minutes and related documents is granted as these documents fall within the scope of the DRD and are necessary for proper disclosure.

Parties
Claimant: Vannin Capital PCC; First Defendant: RBOS Shareholders Action Group Limited; Second Defendants: The Persons Listed in Schedule 1 to the Particulars of Claim
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Disclosure Application / Post Case Management Conference, Applications to Vary and Enforce Disclosure Order
Outcome
Second Defendants' application to vary disclosure order refused; Claimant's application for further searches granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Pilot, Extended Disclosure, Variation of Disclosure Orders, Proportionality in Disclosure, Case Management
Civil Procedure Disclosure Pilot Extended Disclosure Variation of Disclosure Orders Proportionality in Disclosure Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vannin Capital PCC

Claimant

RBOS Shareholders Action Group Limited

First Defendant

The Persons Listed in Schedule 1 to the Particulars of Claim

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Disclosure Application / Post Case Management Conference, Applications to Vary and Enforce Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SG UK DB Trustee Company Limited should be excluded from the disclosure obligations under the Disclosure Order
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendants have complied with the requirements of the Disclosure Review Document (DRD) regarding searches for board minutes and related documents

Ratio Decidendi

The application to exclude SG UK from the disclosure obligations is refused because the Second Defendants agreed to the original order with knowledge of the relevant facts, the distinction between Corporate and Retail Defendants is justified, and the costs argument is unsubstantiated. The application by the Claimant for further searches of board minutes and related documents is granted as these documents fall within the scope of the DRD and are necessary for proper disclosure.

Court Disposition

Second Defendants' application to vary disclosure order refused; Claimant's application for further searches granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • SG UK DB Trustee Company Limited remains subject to the disclosure obligations in Appendix 1.
  • Second Defendants must carry out searches of board minutes and related documents as specified, within two months, with rolling disclosure to the Claimant.