Veasey v Macdougall & Ors [2022] EWHC 864 (Ch) (12 April 2022)

Veasey v Macdougall & Ors [2022] EWHC 864 (Ch) (12 April 2022)

The court held that there may have been failures to comply with disclosure obligations by both sides. Orders for further disclosure were made where the documents sought were relevant to pleaded issues, likely to be probative, and where making the order was reasonable and proportionate under PD 51U. The court declined to order disclosure where the documents were not relevant, not necessary, or where the burden of further searches was disproportionate. The court emphasised the higher threshold for further disclosure under the disclosure pilot scheme compared to the previous regime.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 864 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Jake Veasey; First Respondent: Colin MacDougall; Second Respondent: Tamsin Landelle; Third Respondent: T3115 Limited; Fourth Respondent: BB Zoo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006, S.994) / Interlocutory Applications for Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Applications for specific disclosure granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Disclosure, Practice Direction 51 U, Shareholder Disputes, Corporate Governance
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Disclosure Practice Direction 51 U Shareholder Disputes Corporate Governance

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jake Veasey

Petitioner

Colin MacDougall

First Respondent

Tamsin Landelle

Second Respondent

T3115 Limited

Third Respondent

BB Zoo Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006, S.994) / Interlocutory Applications for Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties have complied with their disclosure obligations under Practice Direction 51U
  2. 2 Whether further or specific disclosure should be ordered against either party
  3. 3 Whether the requested categories of documents are relevant, reasonable, and proportionate for disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there may have been failures to comply with disclosure obligations by both sides. Orders for further disclosure were made where the documents sought were relevant to pleaded issues, likely to be probative, and where making the order was reasonable and proportionate under PD 51U. The court declined to order disclosure where the documents were not relevant, not necessary, or where the burden of further searches was disproportionate. The court emphasised the higher threshold for further disclosure under the disclosure pilot scheme compared to the previous regime.

Court Disposition

Applications for specific disclosure granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Respondents to provide disclosure of animal diaries, bank statements, credit card statements, travel vouchers, unredacted payroll records, and director loan account documents.
  • Petitioner to provide documents relating to the termination of his employment with Vancouver Aquarium, correspondence with Anna Ryder Richardson post-2016, and native versions of specified electronic documents if available.