Hankin v Barrington & Ors [2020] EWHC 1131 (QB) (07 May 2020)

Hankin v Barrington & Ors [2020] EWHC 1131 (QB) (07 May 2020)

The Master had jurisdiction and discretion to order specific disclosure even though the application was procedurally deficient, as the documents were ultimately identified with sufficient particularity during oral argument and were likely to exist and be relevant. The exercise of discretion was within the range of reasonable decisions, and there was no error of principle or real prospect of success on appeal. The order was a case management decision, and the issue was not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1131
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Hankin; First Defendant: Richard Barrington; Second Defendant: Dr Ademola Adejuwon; Third Defendant: Saracens Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (case Management Order) / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal Against Order for Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Specific Disclosure, Case Management, Appeals, Disclosure Obligations, Vicarious Liability, Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Specific Disclosure Case Management Appeals Disclosure Obligations Vicarious Liability Negligence

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Hankin

Claimant

Richard Barrington

First Defendant

Dr Ademola Adejuwon

Second Defendant

Saracens Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (case Management Order) / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal Against Order for Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting specific disclosure when the application lacked specificity and supporting evidence
  2. 2 Whether the court can depart from the mandatory requirements of PD31A in ordering specific disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the order for specific disclosure was a case management decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Master had jurisdiction and discretion to order specific disclosure even though the application was procedurally deficient, as the documents were ultimately identified with sufficient particularity during oral argument and were likely to exist and be relevant. The exercise of discretion was within the range of reasonable decisions, and there was no error of principle or real prospect of success on appeal. The order was a case management decision, and the issue was not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Oral renewal of application for permission to appeal is refused