Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone & Ors [2013] EWHC 2674 (Ch) (22 July 2013)

Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone & Ors [2013] EWHC 2674 (Ch) (22 July 2013)

The court held that Mr Ecclestone does not have physical possession or control of the FOG documents for disclosure purposes. For non-party disclosure under CPR 31.17, the classes of documents sought must be specifically identified so that no exercise of judgment is required by the non-party. The court found that many of the categories sought by Constantin were too broad or insufficiently specified, and that the burden and delay caused by granting the applications would be disproportionate and would inevitably result in loss of the trial date. Accordingly, the applications for further and non-party disclosure were refused. The application to cross-examine Mr McKenzie was also refused as...

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2674 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Constantin Medien AG; 1st Defendant: Bernard Ecclestone; 2nd Defendant: Stephen Mullens; 3rd Defendant: Bambino Holdings; 4th Respondent: Alpha Prema UK Limited; 5th Respondent: Formula One World Championship Limited; 6th Respondent: Formula One Asset Management Limited; 7th Respondent: Formula One Management Limited; 8th Respondent: Formula One Administration Limited; 9th Respondent: CVC Capital Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud/disclosure) / Interlocutory Applications for Disclosure and Related Orders Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications for further and non-party disclosure refused; application to cross-examine Mr McKenzie refused.
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Disclosure Obligations, Bribery Allegations, Valuation of Assets, Expert Evidence, Adjournment of Trial, Cross Examination of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Non Party Disclosure Disclosure Obligations Bribery Allegations Valuation of Assets Expert Evidence +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constantin Medien AG

Applicant/claimant

Bernard Ecclestone

1st Defendant

Stephen Mullens

2nd Defendant

Bambino Holdings

3rd Defendant

Alpha Prema UK Limited

4th Respondent

Formula One World Championship Limited

5th Respondent

Formula One Asset Management Limited

6th Respondent

Formula One Management Limited

7th Respondent

Formula One Administration Limited

8th Respondent

CVC Capital Partners Limited

9th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud/disclosure) / Interlocutory Applications for Disclosure and Related Orders Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Ecclestone has physical possession or control of FOG documents for disclosure purposes
  2. 2 Whether classes of documents sought under CPR 31.17 are sufficiently specified
  3. 3 Whether documents sought are likely to support the applicant's case or adversely affect the defendants' case

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr Ecclestone does not have physical possession or control of the FOG documents for disclosure purposes. For non-party disclosure under CPR 31.17, the classes of documents sought must be specifically identified so that no exercise of judgment is required by the non-party. The court found that many of the categories sought by Constantin were too broad or insufficiently specified, and that the burden and delay caused by granting the applications would be disproportionate and would inevitably result in loss of the trial date. Accordingly, the applications for further and non-party disclosure were refused. The application to cross-examine Mr McKenzie was also refused as...

Court Disposition

Applications for further and non-party disclosure refused; application to cross-examine Mr McKenzie refused.

Orders

  • Applications for further disclosure against Mr Ecclestone refused.
  • Applications for non-party disclosure against CVC and FOG respondents refused.