Bailey v Wood & Ors

Bailey v Wood & Ors

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct, including any errors or alleged dishonesty in disclosure and document handling, created a real risk that a fair trial would not be possible. The issues raised can be properly addressed at trial through cross-examination and do not justify striking out the defence or debarring the defendants from defending or relying on the alleged agreement.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Christopher Bailey; Defendant: Nigel Raymond Wood; Defendant: Anna Dunford; Defendant: David William Clearly; Defendant: Mark Abrol; Defendant: Gareth Thomas O’Hara
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Partnership Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Debarring Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Disclosure Obligations, Partnership Dissolution, Document Tampering, Fair Trial Rights
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Strike Out Applications Disclosure Obligations Partnership Dissolution Document Tampering Fair Trial Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Christopher Bailey

Claimant

Nigel Raymond Wood

Defendant

Anna Dunford

Defendant

David William Clearly

Defendant

Mark Abrol

Defendant

Gareth Thomas O’Hara

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Partnership Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Debarring Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' defence or part thereof should be struck out for alleged dishonest disclosure and document tampering
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be debarred from defending the claim or relying on an alleged agreement
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Dunford deliberately destroyed or altered material documents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct, including any errors or alleged dishonesty in disclosure and document handling, created a real risk that a fair trial would not be possible. The issues raised can be properly addressed at trial through cross-examination and do not justify striking out the defence or debarring the defendants from defending or relying on the alleged agreement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant’s application to strike out the defence or debar the defendants from defending or relying on the alleged agreement is dismissed.