Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The Defendant's application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because the categories of documents sought were too broadly drawn, likely to include irrelevant material, and did not satisfy the strict statutory criteria of relevance and necessity under CPR 31.17. The court emphasised the need to protect third party rights and avoid fishing expeditions.

Parties
Claimant: Gary Flood; Defendant/applicant: Times Newspapers Ltd; 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 / Ruling on Third Party Disclosure Applications
Outcome
Application for third party disclosure against MPS refused.
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Justification in Libel, Qualified Privilege, Privacy/confidentiality, Public Interest, Fishing Expeditions
Defamation Civil Procedure Third Party Disclosure Justification in Libel Qualified Privilege Privacy/confidentiality Public Interest Fishing Expeditions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Flood

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd

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 / Ruling on Third Party Disclosure Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third party disclosure orders against the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and IPCC satisfy the statutory criteria under CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether the categories of documents sought are relevant and necessary to resolve the pleaded issues
  3. 3 Whether third party rights to privacy/confidentiality are adequately protected

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's application for third party disclosure against the MPS failed because the categories of documents sought were too broadly drawn, likely to include irrelevant material, and did not satisfy the strict statutory criteria of relevance and necessity under CPR 31.17. The court emphasised the need to protect third party rights and avoid fishing expeditions.

Court Disposition

Application for third party disclosure against MPS refused.

Orders

  • No order for disclosure against the Metropolitan Police Service for the categories identified in the Defendant’s schedule.