Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 411 (QB) (05 March 2009)

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 411 (QB) (05 March 2009)

The application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because the categories of documents sought were too broadly drawn, failed to demonstrate the strict statutory criteria of relevance and necessity under CPR 31.17, and overlapped with previous disclosure from the IPCC. The court held that the defendant had not discharged its burden to show that the documents were necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs, and that third party rights to privacy and confidentiality required rigorous protection.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 411
Parties
Claimant: Gary Flood; Defendant/applicant: Times Newspapers Limited; First Respondent: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Second Respondent: Independent Police Complaints Commission; Third Party Applicant: Boris Berezovsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (civil) / Application for Third Party Disclosure Order Against Metropolitan Police Service (mps); Application to Set Aside Third Party Disclosure Order Against IPCC
Outcome
Application for third party disclosure against the MPS refused.
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Relevance and Necessity in Disclosure, Protection of Third Party Confidentiality, Qualified Privilege, Justification in Defamation
Civil Procedure Defamation Media Law Third Party Disclosure Relevance and Necessity in Disclosure Protection of Third Party Confidentiality Qualified Privilege Justification in Defamation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Flood

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant/applicant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

First Respondent

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Second Respondent

Boris Berezovsky

Third Party Applicant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (civil) / Application for Third Party Disclosure Order Against Metropolitan Police Service (mps); Application to Set Aside Third Party Disclosure Order Against IPCC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant (Times Newspapers Ltd) is entitled to third party disclosure from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) under CPR 31.17 for categories of documents listed in its schedule.
  2. 2 Whether the third party disclosure order previously made against the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) should be set aside or varied due to disclosure of sensitive documents affecting Boris Berezovsky.
  3. 3 Whether the categories of documents sought meet the statutory criteria of relevance and necessity, and whether the application is unduly broad or amounts to a fishing expedition.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because the categories of documents sought were too broadly drawn, failed to demonstrate the strict statutory criteria of relevance and necessity under CPR 31.17, and overlapped with previous disclosure from the IPCC. The court held that the defendant had not discharged its burden to show that the documents were necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs, and that third party rights to privacy and confidentiality required rigorous protection.

Court Disposition

Application for third party disclosure against the MPS refused.

Orders

  • No order for disclosure is made against the Metropolitan Police Service for any of the categories identified in the defendant's schedule.