Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

The documents sought are not likely to support the claimants' case or adversely affect the defendant's case as required by CPR 31.17(3)(a), since they go only to the credit of a witness and not to the central pleaded issue of corrupt payments. Disclosure is not necessary for fair disposal of the claim or to save costs, as the claimants have already explored the relevant inconsistency through other evidence. The application is also refused due to its lateness and the disproportionate disruption it would cause to the ongoing trial.

Parties
Claimant: Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE; Claimant: Elizabeth Hurley; Claimant: Sir Elton John CH CBE; Claimant: David Furnish; Claimant: Sir Simon Hughes; Claimant: Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex; Claimant: Sadie Frost Law; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Third Party Disclosure
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Relevance and Necessity, Credibility of Witnesses, Timing of Applications
Civil Procedure Media Law Third Party Disclosure Relevance and Necessity Credibility of Witnesses Timing of Applications

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE

Claimant

Elizabeth Hurley

Claimant

Sir Elton John CH CBE

Claimant

David Furnish

Claimant

Sir Simon Hughes

Claimant

Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

Claimant

Sadie Frost Law

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Third Party Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to third-party disclosure from the Metropolitan Police Service under CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are likely to support the claimants' case or adversely affect the defendant's case
  3. 3 Whether disclosure is necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs

Ratio Decidendi

The documents sought are not likely to support the claimants' case or adversely affect the defendant's case as required by CPR 31.17(3)(a), since they go only to the credit of a witness and not to the central pleaded issue of corrupt payments. Disclosure is not necessary for fair disposal of the claim or to save costs, as the claimants have already explored the relevant inconsistency through other evidence. The application is also refused due to its lateness and the disproportionate disruption it would cause to the ongoing trial.

Court Disposition

application refused