Cassidy v Hawcroft [2000] EWCA Civ 238 (27 July 2000)

Cassidy v Hawcroft [2000] EWCA Civ 238 (27 July 2000)

There was no implied undertaking restricting Mr Cassidy's use of the letter because it was produced for inspection following voluntary reference in affidavit and open court, and thus the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 238
Parties
Claimant: Michael Cassidy; Defendant: Mr Hawcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Discovery, Implied Undertaking, Privilege, Production for Inspection
Civil Procedure Defamation Abuse of Process Discovery Implied Undertaking Privilege Production for Inspection

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Cassidy

Claimant

Mr Hawcroft

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings for defamation are an abuse of process when based on a document obtained by production for inspection in other proceedings
  2. 2 Whether an implied undertaking restricts use of a document produced for inspection under CCR order 14 rule 4

Ratio Decidendi

There was no implied undertaking restricting Mr Cassidy's use of the letter because it was produced for inspection following voluntary reference in affidavit and open court, and thus the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • action stayed order set aside
  • costs awarded to appellant