Fulham Football Club Ltd v Kline

Fulham Football Club Ltd v Kline

It is necessary in the interests of justice that the Conjoined November Hearing be held in private because publicity would defeat the object of the hearing and would damage confidentiality, falling within CPR rule 39.2(3)(a) and (c).

Parties
Claimant: Fulham Football Club Limited; Defendant: Craig Kline
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Privacy of Upcoming Committal and Set Aside Applications
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Open Justice, Private Hearings, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Confidentiality Committal Proceedings Open Justice Private Hearings Reporting Restrictions

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fulham Football Club Limited

Claimant

Craig Kline

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Privacy of Upcoming Committal and Set Aside Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Conjoined November Hearing should be held in private
  2. 2 Application of CPR rule 39.2 to committal proceedings involving confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

It is necessary in the interests of justice that the Conjoined November Hearing be held in private because publicity would defeat the object of the hearing and would damage confidentiality, falling within CPR rule 39.2(3)(a) and (c).

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The Conjoined November Hearing shall be heard in private.