Cardiff City Football Club Limited v William Arthur McKay & Ors

Cardiff City Football Club Limited v William Arthur McKay & Ors

The evidence did not establish a compelling or widespread failure by the defendants' solicitors to comply with their disclosure obligations under the settlement and court orders. Only three out of eighteen challenged documents raised unresolved queries, which did not justify the intrusive and disproportionate remedy of appointing an independent barrister to review nearly 6,000 documents. The appropriate and proportionate response was to order the defendants' solicitors to review the 18 documents afresh and file a witness statement confirming the outcome.

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
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application (post Settlement Disclosure) / Ruling on Application for Independent Review of Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Settlement Agreements, Legal Professional Privilege, Court Supervision of Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure of Documents Settlement Agreements Legal Professional Privilege Court Supervision of Disclosure

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 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

Commercial Application (post Settlement Disclosure) / Ruling on Application for Independent Review of Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order an independent barrister to review documents for disclosure compliance under a settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' solicitors properly discharged their disclosure obligations
  3. 3 Whether the claim of legal privilege was properly applied to certain documents

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish a compelling or widespread failure by the defendants' solicitors to comply with their disclosure obligations under the settlement and court orders. Only three out of eighteen challenged documents raised unresolved queries, which did not justify the intrusive and disproportionate remedy of appointing an independent barrister to review nearly 6,000 documents. The appropriate and proportionate response was to order the defendants' solicitors to review the 18 documents afresh and file a witness statement confirming the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' solicitors to review the 18 challenged documents afresh, considering the arguments raised, and to file a witness statement confirming the outcome and the basis for any claims of privilege, particularly for document 17.
  • If any of the 18 documents are found to be disclosable, they must be disclosed.