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 Defendant's application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because it did not satisfy the strict requirements of CPR 31.17: the categories of documents sought were too broad, included irrelevant material, and necessity was not demonstrated, especially given prior disclosure from the IPCC. The court emphasised the need to protect third party rights and to avoid fishing expeditions.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 411 (QB)
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) / Interlocutory Application for Third Party Disclosure
Outcome
Application for third party disclosure against the MPS refused.
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Relevance and Necessity of Documents, Protection of Third Party Rights, Qualified Privilege, Justification in Libel, Confidentiality and Privacy, Public Interest Balancing
Civil Procedure Defamation Media Law Third Party Disclosure Relevance and Necessity of Documents Protection of Third Party Rights Qualified Privilege Justification in Libel +2 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 6 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) / Interlocutory Application for Third Party Disclosure

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 specified categories of documents.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant has demonstrated that the documents sought are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs.
  3. 3 Whether the application for disclosure is too broad and constitutes a 'fishing expedition'.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because it did not satisfy the strict requirements of CPR 31.17: the categories of documents sought were too broad, included irrelevant material, and necessity was not demonstrated, especially given prior disclosure from the IPCC. The court emphasised the need to protect third party rights and to avoid fishing expeditions.

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.