Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 4012 (QB) (18 December 2013)

Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 4012 (QB) (18 December 2013)

The applications for specific and non-party disclosure were refused because the disclosure sought was not necessary for fair disposal of the action, would not save costs, was disproportionate and oppressive, and the issues in dispute were narrow. The claimant had conducted a reasonable search, and the requests would divert resources from the real issues.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4012
Parties
Claimant: The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP; Defendant: Harvey Boulter; Non Party: The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence; Non Party: Mr Werrity
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Specific and Non Party Disclosure
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Standard Disclosure, Specific Disclosure, Non Party Disclosure, Proportionality, Libel, Justification, Honest Comment
Civil Procedure Defamation Disclosure Standard Disclosure Specific Disclosure Non Party Disclosure Proportionality Libel +2 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP

Claimant

Harvey Boulter

Defendant

The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence

Non Party

Mr Werrity

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Specific and Non Party Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has complied with standard disclosure obligations under CPR 31.6 and 31.7
  2. 2 Whether specific disclosure should be ordered against the claimant under CPR 31.12
  3. 3 Whether non-party disclosure should be ordered against the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, and Mr Werrity under CPR 31.17

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for specific and non-party disclosure were refused because the disclosure sought was not necessary for fair disposal of the action, would not save costs, was disproportionate and oppressive, and the issues in dispute were narrow. The claimant had conducted a reasonable search, and the requests would divert resources from the real issues.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Boulter's applications for specific disclosure against Dr Fox and non-party disclosure against the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, and Mr Werrity are dismissed.