Rudd v Bridle & Anor

Rudd v Bridle & Anor

The claimant failed to establish any real risk of non-payment by Mr Bridle or any improper third-party funding that could justify a third-party costs order or the disclosure sought. The sources of funding identified were legitimate and did not warrant a third-party costs order. The documents sought for inspection were not specifically mentioned in the witness statement as required by CPR 31.14, and there was no legitimate purpose for their disclosure in the context of these proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Robin Rudd; First Defendant: John Bridle; Second Defendant: J&S Bridle Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Claim (costs and Disclosure Applications) / Post Trial Applications for Third Party Funding Disclosure and Inspection of Documents
Outcome
Both applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Disclosure of Funding, Inspection of Documents, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Data Protection Third Party Costs Orders Disclosure of Funding Inspection of Documents Costs Assessment

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Robin Rudd

Claimant

John Bridle

First Defendant

J&S Bridle Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Claim (costs and Disclosure Applications) / Post Trial Applications for Third Party Funding Disclosure and Inspection of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to disclosure of the identity of third-party funders of the defendants' litigation costs
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to inspection of documents allegedly mentioned in a witness statement under CPR 31.14

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish any real risk of non-payment by Mr Bridle or any improper third-party funding that could justify a third-party costs order or the disclosure sought. The sources of funding identified were legitimate and did not warrant a third-party costs order. The documents sought for inspection were not specifically mentioned in the witness statement as required by CPR 31.14, and there was no legitimate purpose for their disclosure in the context of these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed