Secretary of State for Transport v Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd

Secretary of State for Transport v Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd

Although the documents sought are relevant and may well support Pell Frischmann's case or adversely affect other parties, the application for non-party disclosure is no longer necessary or appropriate due to the discontinuance of the arbitration, the commencement of new litigation between the Secretary of State and AMEC, and the imminent consolidation or joint trial of the actions, which will entitle Pell Frischmann to standard disclosure in due course. The cost and inconvenience to AMEC of duplicative disclosure outweigh any benefit to Pell Frischmann of early disclosure.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Transport; Defendant/applicant: Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited; Non Party/respondent: Amec Civil Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Party Disclosure / Ruling on Application for Non Party Disclosure Under Section 34 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR 31.17
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Document Disclosure, Civil Litigation, Arbitration and Litigation Interface
Civil Procedure Construction Law Non Party Disclosure Document Disclosure Civil Litigation Arbitration and Litigation Interface

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

Parties

The Secretary of State for Transport

Claimant

Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited

Defendant/applicant

Amec Civil Engineering Limited

Non Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Non Party Disclosure / Ruling on Application for Non Party Disclosure Under Section 34 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR 31.17

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the five categories of documents sought from AMEC by Pell Frischmann are likely to support Pell Frischmann's case or adversely affect the case of another party under CPR 31.17(3)(a)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs under CPR 31.17(3)(b)
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion under CPR 31.17 given the procedural developments

Ratio Decidendi

Although the documents sought are relevant and may well support Pell Frischmann's case or adversely affect other parties, the application for non-party disclosure is no longer necessary or appropriate due to the discontinuance of the arbitration, the commencement of new litigation between the Secretary of State and AMEC, and the imminent consolidation or joint trial of the actions, which will entitle Pell Frischmann to standard disclosure in due course. The cost and inconvenience to AMEC of duplicative disclosure outweigh any benefit to Pell Frischmann of early disclosure.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Pell Frischmann's application for non-party disclosure under CPR 31.17 is dismissed.