Moresfield Ltd. & Ors v Banners (a firm) & Ors

Moresfield Ltd. & Ors v Banners (a firm) & Ors

Banners have made out a case for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 in respect of the two KPMG files. The files are relevant to the scope of KPMG's instructions and potential assurances, and may well be subject to standard disclosure if a Part 20 claim is brought. Pre-action disclosure would assist in avoiding litigation and is justified despite delay, limited scope, and KPMG's prior agreement to disclose. Alternatively, the application under CPR 31.17 would also be granted.

Parties
Claimant: Moresfield Limited; Claimant: Kenneth Swift; Claimant: Jeremy Swift; Defendant: Banners (a firm); Defendant: KPMG (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Disclosure / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application for pre-action disclosure granted
Legal Topics
Pre Action Disclosure, Non Party Disclosure, Contribution Claims, Scope of Duty, Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Pre Action Disclosure Non Party Disclosure Contribution Claims Scope of Duty Settlement Agreements

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moresfield Limited

Claimant

Kenneth Swift

Claimant

Jeremy Swift

Claimant

Banners (a firm)

Defendant

KPMG (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Disclosure / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Banners are entitled to pre-action disclosure of KPMG's files under CPR 31.16 or CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether KPMG's files are relevant to Banners' potential claim for indemnity or contribution against KPMG
  3. 3 Whether the conditions for pre-action or non-party disclosure are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Banners have made out a case for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 in respect of the two KPMG files. The files are relevant to the scope of KPMG's instructions and potential assurances, and may well be subject to standard disclosure if a Part 20 claim is brought. Pre-action disclosure would assist in avoiding litigation and is justified despite delay, limited scope, and KPMG's prior agreement to disclose. Alternatively, the application under CPR 31.17 would also be granted.

Court Disposition

Application for pre-action disclosure granted

Orders

  • Pre-action disclosure of the two KPMG files ordered under CPR 31.16
  • If form of order cannot be agreed, parties to be heard