Cardiff City Football Club Ltd v McKay & Ors [2024] EWHC 2953 (KB) (31 July 2024)

Cardiff City Football Club Ltd v McKay & Ors [2024] EWHC 2953 (KB) (31 July 2024)

The claimant failed to establish compelling grounds or a widespread failure in the defendants' disclosure exercise to justify the intrusive and disproportionate remedy of appointing an independent barrister to review disclosure. The default position is to trust solicitors as officers of the court unless clear evidence displaces that assumption. Only three out of eighteen challenged documents raised unresolved queries, which did not warrant the relief sought.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2953 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Cardiff City Football Club Limited; First Defendant: William Arthur McKay; Second Defendant: Mark McKay; Third Defendant: Janis McKay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Proceedings (post Settlement Disclosure Enforcement) / Application for Independent Review of Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Settlement Enforcement, Legal Professional Privilege, Proportionality in Disclosure, Court's Inherent Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Obligations Settlement Enforcement Legal Professional Privilege Proportionality in Disclosure Court's Inherent Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cardiff City Football Club Limited

Claimant

William Arthur McKay

First Defendant

Mark McKay

Second Defendant

Janis McKay

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Proceedings (post Settlement Disclosure Enforcement) / Application for Independent Review of Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an independent barrister should be appointed to review disclosure by defendants' solicitors
  2. 2 Whether defendants' solicitors properly discharged their disclosure obligations under the settlement and court orders
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have shown compelling grounds for intrusive disclosure relief

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish compelling grounds or a widespread failure in the defendants' disclosure exercise to justify the intrusive and disproportionate remedy of appointing an independent barrister to review disclosure. The default position is to trust solicitors as officers of the court unless clear evidence displaces that assumption. Only three out of eighteen challenged documents raised unresolved queries, which did not warrant the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' solicitors to review the 18 challenged documents afresh and determine if any are disclosable under the Disclosure Order.
  • Defendants' solicitors to serve a witness statement confirming the outcome of the review.