McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 2322 (TCC) (15 September 2006)

McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 2322 (TCC) (15 September 2006)

There is a real, not fanciful, risk that the claimant would incur a substantial Capital Gains Tax liability if he attended court in person; no significant prejudice to the defendants arises from evidence by video link; the application was timely and within procedural guidelines; therefore, the order for video link evidence is granted.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2322 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Ian McGlinn; First Defendant: Waltham Contractors Ltd; Second Defendant: Huw Thomas Associates; Third Defendant: DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Wilson Large & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Evidence by Video Link
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Video Link Evidence, Discretion Under CPR 32.3, Capital Gains Tax Risk, Witness Evidence From Abroad
Civil Procedure Video Link Evidence Discretion Under CPR 32.3 Capital Gains Tax Risk Witness Evidence From Abroad

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian McGlinn

Claimant

Waltham Contractors Ltd

First Defendant

Huw Thomas Associates

Second Defendant

DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd

Third Defendant

Wilson Large & Partners

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Evidence by Video Link

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to give evidence by video link under CPR 32.3 due to risk of UK Capital Gains Tax liability

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real, not fanciful, risk that the claimant would incur a substantial Capital Gains Tax liability if he attended court in person; no significant prejudice to the defendants arises from evidence by video link; the application was timely and within procedural guidelines; therefore, the order for video link evidence is granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to give evidence by video link pursuant to CPR 32.3