Bingham v Martin & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1453 (22 August 2001)

Bingham v Martin & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1453 (22 August 2001)

The documents in question were not subject to an implied undertaking as they were not disclosed under compulsion; therefore, their disclosure did not amount to contempt of court.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1453
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Andrew Bingham; Defendant/respondent: Michael Maurice Martin; Defendant/respondent: Elspeth Talbot-Rice; Defendant/respondent: Veronica Pieters; Defendant/respondent: D J W Fisher; Defendant/respondent: Benjamin Tubb; Defendant/respondent: Shantandu Majumdar; Defendant/respondent: Norman Carter; Defendant/respondent: Sheila Carter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Stay of Enforcement
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Implied Undertaking, Disclosure of Documents, Breach of Confidence, Professional Obligations, Costs
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Implied Undertaking Disclosure of Documents Breach of Confidence Professional Obligations Costs

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

Parties

Andrew Bingham

Claimant/applicant

Michael Maurice Martin

Defendant/respondent

Elspeth Talbot-Rice

Defendant/respondent

Veronica Pieters

Defendant/respondent

D J W Fisher

Defendant/respondent

Benjamin Tubb

Defendant/respondent

Shantandu Majumdar

Defendant/respondent

Norman Carter

Defendant/respondent

Sheila Carter

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Stay of Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of certain documents constituted contempt of court due to breach of implied undertaking
  2. 2 Whether the documents were subject to an implied undertaking to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The documents in question were not subject to an implied undertaking as they were not disclosed under compulsion; therefore, their disclosure did not amount to contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Application for extension of time refused