Fox v Boulter

The disclosure orders sought are not necessary for disposing fairly of the action, would not save costs, and are disproportionate given the narrow issues and the burden on parties and non-parties. Dr Fox has conducted a reasonable search, and the classes of documents sought are too wide and vague. The applications are dismissed.

Parties: Claimant: The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP; Defendant: Harvey Boulter; First Respondent: Cabinet Office; First Respondent: Ministry of Defence; Second Respondent: Adam Werrity
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 December 2013
Procedural Posture: Libel Action / Ruling on Applications for Specific and Non Party Disclosure
Outcome: Applications dismissed
Legal Topics: Disclosure, Standard Disclosure, Specific Disclosure, Non Party Disclosure, Overriding Objective, Libel, Justification, Honest Comment

Civil Procedure Defamation Disclosure Standard Disclosure Specific Disclosure Non Party Disclosure Overriding Objective 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

Parties

The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP

Claimant

Harvey Boulter

Defendant

Cabinet Office

First Respondent

Ministry of Defence

First Respondent

Adam Werrity

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Ruling on Applications for Specific and Non Party Disclosure

Legal Issues

1 Whether Dr Fox should be ordered to provide specific disclosure of documents no longer in his control
2 Whether non-party disclosure should be ordered against the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, and Adam Werrity
3 Whether the disclosure sought is necessary and proportionate under CPR rules

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed