Kelly & Anor v Baker & Anor [2021] EWHC 964 (Comm) (23 April 2021)

Kelly & Anor v Baker & Anor [2021] EWHC 964 (Comm) (23 April 2021)

Model D extended disclosure without Narrative Documents is appropriate as Model E is not justified; the relevant period for Issue 1 is 2013–2017 plus 1 July 2006–December 2008 for the aborted sale; Defendants do not have 'control' of the Server Data for disclosure as access is not free or unfettered.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 964 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: John Thomas Kelly; Claimant: Lansdowne Group Limited; Defendant: Mr Brian Edward Baker; Defendant: Mr Robert John Braid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Case Management Conference (cmc) Judgment on Disclosure Issues and Application Regarding Server Data Control
Outcome
Claimants' application refused; directions given for disclosure scope and model.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Extended Disclosure Models, Control of Documents, Case Management, Practice Direction 51 U
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Extended Disclosure Models Control of Documents Case Management Practice Direction 51 U

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

Parties

John Thomas Kelly

Claimant

Lansdowne Group Limited

Claimant

Mr Brian Edward Baker

Defendant

Mr Robert John Braid

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Case Management Conference (cmc) Judgment on Disclosure Issues and Application Regarding Server Data Control

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of Issue 1 in the Disclosure Review Document (DRD)
  2. 2 Appropriate model of extended disclosure for Defendants
  3. 3 Whether Defendants have 'control' of Server Data for disclosure purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Model D extended disclosure without Narrative Documents is appropriate as Model E is not justified; the relevant period for Issue 1 is 2013–2017 plus 1 July 2006–December 2008 for the aborted sale; Defendants do not have 'control' of the Server Data for disclosure as access is not free or unfettered.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application refused; directions given for disclosure scope and model.

Orders

  • Model D extended disclosure by Defendants without Narrative Documents ordered.
  • Disclosure for Issue 1 limited to 2013–2017 and 1 July 2006–December 2008 for the aborted sale.