Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) (24 July 2019)

Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) (24 July 2019)

The claimant failed to establish any material risk of non-payment by Mr Bridle, failed to show improper or actionable third-party funding, and failed to demonstrate that documents sought for inspection were specifically mentioned in the witness statement. Both applications were dismissed as unnecessary, speculative,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1986 (QB)
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 / Post Trial Applications for Disclosure and Inspection
Outcome
Both applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Funding, Costs Orders, Disclosure, Inspection of Documents
Data Protection Civil Procedure Costs Third Party Funding Costs Orders Disclosure Inspection of Documents

Source-derived case record

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 4 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 / Post Trial Applications for Disclosure and Inspection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were funded by third parties in the litigation
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to disclosure of funders' identities and related documents
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to inspection of documents mentioned in a witness statement

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish any material risk of non-payment by Mr Bridle, failed to show improper or actionable third-party funding, and failed to demonstrate that documents sought for inspection were specifically mentioned in the witness statement. Both applications were dismissed as unnecessary, speculative, and unsupported by evidence or legal principle.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed