Edmund George Imjin Fosbroke Truell & Anor v Aleksandra Zalinska

Edmund George Imjin Fosbroke Truell & Anor v Aleksandra Zalinska

The application for non-party disclosure was dismissed because the claimant failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were likely to support their case or were necessary for the fair disposal of the claim, as required by CPR 31.17(3). The claimant already possessed almost all relevant documents through prior disclosure and voluntary provision by the Bank, and the remaining categories were either too broad, ill-defined, or peripheral. The claimant's evidence was inadequate and misleading, and the application was fundamentally flawed.

Parties
Claimant: Edmund George Imjin Fosbroke Truell; Claimant (deceased): John Rayner Hatchard; Defendant: Aleksandra Zalinska; Respondent: Union Bancaire Privée (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/trusts / Application for Non Party Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Disclosure Obligations, Costs Orders, Fiduciary Duty, Undue Influence
Civil Procedure Probate Trusts Non Party Disclosure Disclosure Obligations Costs Orders Fiduciary Duty Undue Influence

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund George Imjin Fosbroke Truell

Claimant

John Rayner Hatchard

Claimant (deceased)

Aleksandra Zalinska

Defendant

Union Bancaire Privée (UK) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/trusts / Application for Non Party Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to non-party disclosure from the Bank under CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether the categories of documents sought satisfy the tests of relevance and necessity under CPR 31.17(3)
  3. 3 Whether the Bank's policy documents and records regarding vulnerability are disclosable

Ratio Decidendi

The application for non-party disclosure was dismissed because the claimant failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were likely to support their case or were necessary for the fair disposal of the claim, as required by CPR 31.17(3). The claimant already possessed almost all relevant documents through prior disclosure and voluntary provision by the Bank, and the remaining categories were either too broad, ill-defined, or peripheral. The claimant's evidence was inadequate and misleading, and the application was fundamentally flawed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's application for non-party disclosure is dismissed.
  • The claimant shall pay the Bank's costs of the application on the indemnity basis, subject to immediate detailed assessment and payment on account.