Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor

Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor

The court refused to order Model E disclosure, limiting disclosure to Model D subject to a revised, focused list of issues. The application for further information on quantum of damages was refused as unnecessary at this stage. Costs budgets were set with significant reductions for proportionality, and trial length was reduced from ten to six days plus one day pre-reading. The court emphasised the need for proportionality and efficient case management given the modest sums in dispute and the attritional nature of the litigation.

Parties
Claimant: Kings Security Systems Limited; Defendant: Anthony Douglas King; Defendant: Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/chancery) / Case Management Conference (ccmc) and Costs Budgeting
Outcome
Case management directions given; applications for Model E disclosure and further information on damages refused; costs budgets set with reductions; trial length reduced.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Costs Budgeting, Abuse of Process, Bribery, Unfair Prejudice, Damages
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Disclosure Costs Budgeting Abuse of Process Bribery Unfair Prejudice +1 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kings Security Systems Limited

Claimant

Anthony Douglas King

Defendant

Evans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/chancery) / Case Management Conference (ccmc) and Costs Budgeting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate model for disclosure (Model D vs Model E) under PD 51U
  2. 2 Whether further information should be provided on quantum of damages for counterclaim
  3. 3 Proportionality and reasonableness of costs budgets

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order Model E disclosure, limiting disclosure to Model D subject to a revised, focused list of issues. The application for further information on quantum of damages was refused as unnecessary at this stage. Costs budgets were set with significant reductions for proportionality, and trial length was reduced from ten to six days plus one day pre-reading. The court emphasised the need for proportionality and efficient case management given the modest sums in dispute and the attritional nature of the litigation.

Court Disposition

Case management directions given; applications for Model E disclosure and further information on damages refused; costs budgets set with reductions; trial length reduced.

Orders

  • Parties to agree a revised, focused list of issues for disclosure per PD 51U.
  • Disclosure limited to Model D, not Model E, subject to further review after revised issues and costs figures.