Glidepath Holding BV & Ors v Thompson & Ors

Glidepath Holding BV & Ors v Thompson & Ors

The application for disclosure under CPR 5.4(5) was inappropriate as the applicant was not a party to the proceedings and the documents sought should be requested in the relevant tribunal or court. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal against the refusal of disclosure or the order for costs.

Parties
Applicant: Glidepath Holding BV & Ors; Respondent: Thompson & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Costs, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Disclosure of Documents Costs Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Glidepath Holding BV & Ors

Applicant

Thompson & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to disclosure of documents from the court file under CPR 5.4(5)
  2. 2 Whether the order for costs against the applicant was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The application for disclosure under CPR 5.4(5) was inappropriate as the applicant was not a party to the proceedings and the documents sought should be requested in the relevant tribunal or court. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal against the refusal of disclosure or the order for costs.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No order altering costs