Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321 (11 March 2003)

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321 (11 March 2003)

The findings and conclusions of Nelson J in prior civil proceedings are not admissible as evidence in the present disqualification proceedings between different parties. It is not an abuse of process for Mr Bairstow to require the Secretary of State to prove allegations by admissible evidence. The order of Pumfrey J, binding the parties to prior findings, was wrong in law and must be set aside.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 321
Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Defendant: John Bairstow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Companies Court (disqualification Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment From Order of Pumfrey J; Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Pumfrey J set aside; matter remitted for further pre-trial review.
Legal Topics
Directors' Disqualification, Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Collateral Attack, Res Judicata
Company Law Civil Procedure Directors' Disqualification Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Collateral Attack Res Judicata

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Claimant

John Bairstow

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Companies Court (disqualification Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment From Order of Pumfrey J; Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of fact and conclusions from prior civil proceedings are admissible as evidence in subsequent directors' disqualification proceedings where parties are not the same;
  2. 2 Whether it is an abuse of process for a respondent to require the applicant to prove allegations by admissible evidence rather than being bound by previous findings;

Ratio Decidendi

The findings and conclusions of Nelson J in prior civil proceedings are not admissible as evidence in the present disqualification proceedings between different parties. It is not an abuse of process for Mr Bairstow to require the Secretary of State to prove allegations by admissible evidence. The order of Pumfrey J, binding the parties to prior findings, was wrong in law and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Pumfrey J set aside; matter remitted for further pre-trial review.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the order of Pumfrey J set aside.
  • Matter remitted to Pumfrey J for further pre-trial review.