Three Rivers District Council & Ors v HM Treasury & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1182 (7 August 2002)

Three Rivers District Council & Ors v HM Treasury & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1182 (7 August 2002)

The Court held that the threshold for third party disclosure under CPR 31.17(3)(a) is met if the documents 'may well' support the applicant's case or adversely affect another party's case, rejecting the stricter 'more probable than not' standard. The Bank of England did not have control over the Bingham Inquiry Archive, so no disclosure obligation arose against it. The judge was entitled to find that the threshold for disclosure against HM Treasury was satisfied in the circumstances of this case.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1182
Parties
Appellants/claimants: Three Rivers District Council and others; Respondent: HM Treasury; Respondent: The Governor & Company of the Bank of England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Queen’s Bench Division (commercial Court) to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal by HM Treasury dismissed; appeal by claimants not pursued.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Misfeasance in Public Office, Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules, Third Party Disclosure, Banking Regulation
Civil Procedure Banking Law Public Law Disclosure of Documents Misfeasance in Public Office Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules Third Party Disclosure Banking Regulation

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Three Rivers District Council and others

Appellants/claimants

HM Treasury

Respondent

The Governor & Company of the Bank of England

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Queen’s Bench Division (commercial Court) to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank of England had control over the Bingham Inquiry Archive for disclosure purposes under CPR 31.8
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for third party disclosure under CPR 31.17(3)(a) was met in relation to HM Treasury
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'likely' in CPR 31.17(3)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the threshold for third party disclosure under CPR 31.17(3)(a) is met if the documents 'may well' support the applicant's case or adversely affect another party's case, rejecting the stricter 'more probable than not' standard. The Bank of England did not have control over the Bingham Inquiry Archive, so no disclosure obligation arose against it. The judge was entitled to find that the threshold for disclosure against HM Treasury was satisfied in the circumstances of this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal by HM Treasury dismissed; appeal by claimants not pursued.

Orders

  • Declaration that the requirements of CPR 31.17(3)(a) are satisfied in respect of the scheduled material against HM Treasury.
  • Declaration that the Archive is not in the control of the Bank of England and the Bank is under no obligation to disclose it.