Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor

CPR 31.14 is not engaged by generic references to classes of documents in a witness statement; only specific mention or direct allusion triggers the right to inspection. Specific disclosure prior to standard disclosure and before service of defence is not justified unless consistent with the overriding objective and necessary for fairness.

Parties
Claimant: Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd; First Defendant: Gary John Fielding; Second Defendant: Sally Anne Fielding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application for Disclosure and Inspection of Documents
Outcome
Application for inspection under CPR 31.14 dismissed except for conceded documents; specific disclosure granted only for the minute of the board meeting of 29th August 2007; all other requests denied.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Inspection of Documents, Specific Disclosure, Company Dissolution, Standing, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure Inspection of Documents Specific Disclosure Company Dissolution Standing Overriding Objective

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

Parties

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd

Claimant

Gary John Fielding

First Defendant

Sally Anne Fielding

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application for Disclosure and Inspection of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 31.14 is engaged by references in a witness statement to classes of documents
  2. 2 Whether specific disclosure should be ordered prior to standard disclosure and before service of defence
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to documents to plead their defence

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 31.14 is not engaged by generic references to classes of documents in a witness statement; only specific mention or direct allusion triggers the right to inspection. Specific disclosure prior to standard disclosure and before service of defence is not justified unless consistent with the overriding objective and necessary for fairness.

Court Disposition

Application for inspection under CPR 31.14 dismissed except for conceded documents; specific disclosure granted only for the minute of the board meeting of 29th August 2007; all other requests denied.

Orders

  • Claimant to disclose minute of board meeting held on 29th August 2007.
  • Defendants to pay 80% of claimant’s costs of the application.