Al Saud & Anor v Gibbs & Anor [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm) (30 March 2022)

Al Saud & Anor v Gibbs & Anor [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm) (30 March 2022)

The court held that only Requests 17 (excluding sub-paragraphs 17.2 and 17.5) and 18 of the claimants' Request for Further Information met the threshold of necessity and proportionality under CPR Part 18 for the purposes of the forthcoming summary judgment applications. The defendants were ordered to provide full...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 706 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: HRH Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Claimant: HRH Princess Deema bint Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Defendant: Ronald William Gibbs; Defendant: Sunnydale Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under CPR Part 18 / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Prior to Summary Judgment Hearing
Outcome
Partially granted
Legal Topics
Requests for Further Information, Case Management, Summary Judgment, Disclosure Obligations, Breach of Settlement Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Trusts and Equity Requests for Further Information Case Management Summary Judgment Disclosure Obligations Breach of Settlement Agreement

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HRH Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Claimant

HRH Princess Deema bint Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Claimant

Ronald William Gibbs

Defendant

Sunnydale Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under CPR Part 18 / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Prior to Summary Judgment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be ordered to provide further information and clarification in response to specific requests under CPR Part 18
  2. 2 Whether the information sought is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of the forthcoming summary judgment applications
  3. 3 What constitutes reasonable diligence in responding to a CPR Part 18 request

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that only Requests 17 (excluding sub-paragraphs 17.2 and 17.5) and 18 of the claimants' Request for Further Information met the threshold of necessity and proportionality under CPR Part 18 for the purposes of the forthcoming summary judgment applications. The defendants were ordered to provide full and proper responses to these requests, exercising reasonable diligence and making reasonable enquiries, with the responses to be verified by a statement of truth and subject to confidentiality undertakings. The remaining requests were refused as not necessary or proportionate at this stage.

Court Disposition

Partially granted

Orders

  • Defendants to file and serve, by 4 pm on 22 April 2022, further information and/or clarification verified by a statement of truth in response to Requests 17 (excluding 17.2 and 17.5) and 18 of the RFI.
  • Claimants to provide an express undertaking that information provided, particularly in answer to Request 18, will be kept confidential and used or disclosed only as necessary for the purposes of this action.