FCA v Papadimitrakopoloulos & Anor

FCA v Papadimitrakopoloulos & Anor

Disclosure was ordered only for those categories of documents that were specifically mentioned or directly alluded to in the FCA's witness statement (Williams 3), as required by CPR PD51U paragraph 21 and relevant case law. References to reviews or legal advice did not amount to mention of documents. Disclosure of documents obtained via MLA was not ordered absent evidence of foreign authority consent. The court found disclosure reasonable and proportionate for the categories meeting the threshold, given the complexity and importance of the case and the relevance to the pending strike out application.

Parties
Claimant: FCA; First Defendant: Papadimitrakopoulos; Second Defendant: Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Pending Strike Out Application
Outcome
Disclosure application allowed in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Abuse of Process, Mutual Legal Assistance, Privilege, Market Abuse, Statutory Construction
Civil Procedure Financial Regulation Disclosure of Documents Abuse of Process Mutual Legal Assistance Privilege Market Abuse Statutory Construction

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FCA

Claimant

Papadimitrakopoulos

First Defendant

Anr

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Pending Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific categories of documents are 'mentioned' in a witness statement for purposes of disclosure under CPR PD51U paragraph 21
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of such documents is reasonable and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether references to reviews or legal advice in witness statements amount to mention of documents

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure was ordered only for those categories of documents that were specifically mentioned or directly alluded to in the FCA's witness statement (Williams 3), as required by CPR PD51U paragraph 21 and relevant case law. References to reviews or legal advice did not amount to mention of documents. Disclosure of documents obtained via MLA was not ordered absent evidence of foreign authority consent. The court found disclosure reasonable and proportionate for the categories meeting the threshold, given the complexity and importance of the case and the relevance to the pending strike out application.

Court Disposition

Disclosure application allowed in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • Disclosure ordered for requests for assistance (Request 1) and certain non-MLA documents specifically mentioned in Williams 3 (parts of Request 6).
  • Disclosure refused for communications relating to reviews and legal advice (Requests 2 and 3).