Lindner v Rawlins

Lindner v Rawlins

The judge was entitled to refuse the order for disclosure because the material sought was not necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs, given the voluminous documentation already available and the limited relevance of the police statement to the pleaded case.

Parties
Appellant: John Lindner; Respondent: Sharon Rawlins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Appeal From Case Management Directions
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Disclosure by Non Party, Case Management, Unreasonable Behaviour, Evidence
Family Law Divorce Disclosure by Non Party Case Management Unreasonable Behaviour 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lindner

Appellant

Sharon Rawlins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Appeal From Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to order disclosure by Wiltshire Police of a witness statement to the husband in divorce proceedings
  2. 2 Whether such disclosure was necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs under Rule 21.2 of the Family Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse the order for disclosure because the material sought was not necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs, given the voluminous documentation already available and the limited relevance of the police statement to the pleaded case.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed