Fanmailuk.Com Ltd & Anor v Cooper & Ors [2010] EWHC 2647 (Ch) (21 October 2010)

Fanmailuk.Com Ltd & Anor v Cooper & Ors [2010] EWHC 2647 (Ch) (21 October 2010)

Disclosure was refused because the documents sought were not necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs, given that Dialtime already had sufficient material to advance its case and the assessment of compensation would be unopposed. The requirements of CPR 31.17 were not satisfied.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2647 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: FanmailUK.com Limited; Claimant: Paul Burtenshaw; Claimant: Dialtime Plus Limited; Defendant: Robert Cooper; Defendant: David Cooper; Defendant: Ahmed Zghari; Defendant: MCashback Limited; Defendant: Yvonne Wayne; Non Party Respondent: Standard Chartered Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Third Party Disclosure / Post Settlement, Pre Quantification of Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Compensation, Account of Profits, Non Party Costs Orders, Default Judgment, Administration and Winding Up, Valuation of Shares
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Trusts Insolvency Third Party Disclosure Breach of Fiduciary Duty Equitable Compensation Account of Profits +4 more

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

Parties

FanmailUK.com Limited

Claimant

Paul Burtenshaw

Claimant

Dialtime Plus Limited

Claimant

Robert Cooper

Defendant

David Cooper

Defendant

Ahmed Zghari

Defendant

MCashback Limited

Defendant

Yvonne Wayne

Defendant

Standard Chartered Bank

Non Party Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Third Party Disclosure / Post Settlement, Pre Quantification of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure should be ordered against a non-party (Standard Chartered Bank) under CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are likely to support the applicant's case or adversely affect another party's case
  3. 3 Whether disclosure is necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure was refused because the documents sought were not necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs, given that Dialtime already had sufficient material to advance its case and the assessment of compensation would be unopposed. The requirements of CPR 31.17 were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed