Hankin v Barrington & Ors

Hankin v Barrington & Ors

The Master had discretion to reformulate the categories of documents sought during oral argument, despite deficiencies in the application and supporting evidence. The documents were identified with sufficient particularity and were likely to exist and relevant. The decision was within the range of permissible discretion, and there was no error of principle or real prospect of success on appeal. The issue was not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Hankin; Defendant: Richard Barrington; Defendant: Dr Ademola Adejuwon; Defendant: Saracens Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal Against Specific Disclosure Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Specific Disclosure, Case Management, Appeals, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Specific Disclosure Case Management Appeals Disclosure Obligations

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Hankin

Claimant

Richard Barrington

Defendant

Dr Ademola Adejuwon

Defendant

Saracens Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal Against Specific Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting specific disclosure despite lack of specificity and supporting evidence in the application
  2. 2 Whether the court can depart from mandatory requirements of Practice Direction 31PD in ordering specific disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the decision to order disclosure was a case management decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Master had discretion to reformulate the categories of documents sought during oral argument, despite deficiencies in the application and supporting evidence. The documents were identified with sufficient particularity and were likely to exist and relevant. The decision was within the range of permissible discretion, and there was no error of principle or real prospect of success on appeal. The issue was not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Oral renewal of application for permission to appeal is refused