Candy v Holyoake & Ors

Candy v Holyoake & Ors

Although the Initial Defendants committed serious and significant breaches of disclosure obligations, the breaches were not proven to be deliberate suppression or misconduct. Striking out their defences or entering judgment without trial would be disproportionate. Appropriate sanctions are indemnity costs for the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Defendant: Emma Adanma Holyoake; Defendant: David Clive Wells; Defendant: William Alexander Charles Pym; Defendant: William Derrick Lovering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Applications to strike out the Initial Defendants' defences and for default judgment against the Additional Defendants refused; Claimant's Response to Part 18 Request struck out with order for further response; costs orders made against Initial Defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Disclosure Obligations, Striking Out Applications, Default Judgment, Part 18 Requests
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Data Protection Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Act 1998 Disclosure Obligations Striking Out Applications +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Claimant

Mark Alan Holyoake

Defendant

Emma Adanma Holyoake

Defendant

David Clive Wells

Defendant

William Alexander Charles Pym

Defendant

William Derrick Lovering

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Initial Defendants' defences should be struck out for serious breaches of disclosure obligations
  2. 2 Whether judgment in default should be entered against the Additional Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's Response to the Part 18 Request should be struck out and a further answer required

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Initial Defendants committed serious and significant breaches of disclosure obligations, the breaches were not proven to be deliberate suppression or misconduct. Striking out their defences or entering judgment without trial would be disproportionate. Appropriate sanctions are indemnity costs for the abortive disclosure round and related applications, and a further costs order for the strike-out application. The case should proceed to trial with further directions, including a requirement for the Claimant to provide a more detailed response to the Part 18 Request.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out the Initial Defendants' defences and for default judgment against the Additional Defendants refused; Claimant's Response to Part 18 Request struck out with order for further response; costs orders made against Initial Defendants.

Orders

  • Initial Defendants to pay costs of abortive disclosure and related applications on the indemnity basis.
  • Initial Defendants to pay at least the bulk of the costs of the strike-out application, subject to further argument.