Brearley & Others v Higgs & Sons (a firm)

Brearley & Others v Higgs & Sons (a firm)

The court held that it is not reasonable and proportionate to extend the date range for disclosure prior to 1 February 2014, as the evidence does not justify it and the likelihood of relevant material is low. Further disclosure orders regarding social media and text messages are also disproportionate. The court accepted that the claimants' solicitors have provided or agreed to provide the relevant disclosure, and that further orders are not warranted except as agreed between the parties. The court ordered a witness statement from a senior solicitor at Freeths to confirm the scope and process of disclosure from third parties and explain the selection of disclosed documents. Additional...

Parties
Claimant: James Richard Scott Brearley & Others; Defendant: Higgs & Sons (a Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Application for specific disclosure largely dismissed except as agreed or ordered in terms set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Solicitors' Duties, Loss of Chance, Costs, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Disclosure Solicitors' Duties Loss of Chance Costs Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Richard Scott Brearley & Others

Claimant

Higgs & Sons (a Firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to specific disclosure beyond the standard disclosure already ordered
  2. 2 Whether the date range for disclosure should be extended
  3. 3 Whether further disclosure of bank statements, social media, and text messages is reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not reasonable and proportionate to extend the date range for disclosure prior to 1 February 2014, as the evidence does not justify it and the likelihood of relevant material is low. Further disclosure orders regarding social media and text messages are also disproportionate. The court accepted that the claimants' solicitors have provided or agreed to provide the relevant disclosure, and that further orders are not warranted except as agreed between the parties. The court ordered a witness statement from a senior solicitor at Freeths to confirm the scope and process of disclosure from third parties and explain the selection of disclosed documents. Additional...

Court Disposition

Application for specific disclosure largely dismissed except as agreed or ordered in terms set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • No extension of the date range for disclosure prior to 1 February 2014.
  • A senior solicitor at Freeths to provide a witness statement detailing requests made to third parties and the basis for selection of disclosed documents.