Lacey v Leonard [2018] EWHC 3528 (QB) (20 December 2018)

Lacey v Leonard [2018] EWHC 3528 (QB) (20 December 2018)

The appeal was allowed because Master Gidden failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the principal arguments for pre-action disclosure. However, upon rehearing, the application for pre-action disclosure was dismissed as the evidence did not establish that disclosure would assist in settlement, fair disposal, or cost-saving as required by CPR 31.16(3)(d).

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3528 (QB)
Parties
Respondent / Proposed Claimant: Mr Patrick Lacey; Appellant / Proposed Defendant: Mr Niall Leonard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Master) in Personal Injury Pre Action Disclosure Application / Appeal Judgment and Determination of Underlying Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application for pre-action disclosure dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Disclosure, CPR 31.16, Adequacy of Judicial Reasons, Personal Injury Claims, Interim Payments, Rehabilitation, Disclosure of Medical Records
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Pre Action Disclosure CPR 31.16 Adequacy of Judicial Reasons Personal Injury Claims Interim Payments Rehabilitation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Patrick Lacey

Respondent / Proposed Claimant

Mr Niall Leonard

Appellant / Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Master) in Personal Injury Pre Action Disclosure Application / Appeal Judgment and Determination of Underlying Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Master Gidden gave adequate reasons for refusing pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16
  2. 2 Whether the application for pre-action disclosure satisfied the requirements of CPR 31.16(3)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because Master Gidden failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the principal arguments for pre-action disclosure. However, upon rehearing, the application for pre-action disclosure was dismissed as the evidence did not establish that disclosure would assist in settlement, fair disposal, or cost-saving as required by CPR 31.16(3)(d).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application for pre-action disclosure dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against Master's decision allowed for failure to give adequate reasons
  • Application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 dismissed