Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

The applications for adjournment failed because the medical evidence did not meet the required standard for showing unfitness to participate. The court was not satisfied that the defendants could not participate, especially as they had managed to instruct counsel and engage with proceedings. Extended disclosure was ordered, including the third purported restructure, as it was relevant to the pleaded issues and necessary for fair determination. Privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent disclosure, as it is addressed by the Practice Direction. Costs of the adjournment application were awarded against the defendants on a joint and several basis for 30% of the claimant's costs,...

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Scott Dylan; Defendant: Gareth Michael Dylan; Defendant: Sally Ann Glover; Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant: Old3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Fresh Thinking Group Ltd); Defendant: Jack Mason; Defendant: Old3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Inc Travel Group Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/banking) / Disclosure Guidance/directions Hearing; Application for Adjournment; Costs and Summary Assessment
Outcome
Adjournment application refused; extended disclosure ordered; costs awarded against defendants (in part)
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Adjournment, Costs, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Freezing Injunctions
Civil Procedure Banking Law Company Law Disclosure Adjournment Costs Privilege Against Self Incrimination Freezing Injunctions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant/respondent

Scott Dylan

Defendant

Gareth Michael Dylan

Defendant

Sally Ann Glover

Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant

Old3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Fresh Thinking Group Ltd)

Defendant

Jack Mason

Defendant

Old3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Inc Travel Group Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/banking) / Disclosure Guidance/directions Hearing; Application for Adjournment; Costs and Summary Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be adjourned on medical grounds for two defendants
  2. 2 Whether extended disclosure should be ordered including the 'third purported restructure'
  3. 3 Whether privilege against self-incrimination prevents disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for adjournment failed because the medical evidence did not meet the required standard for showing unfitness to participate. The court was not satisfied that the defendants could not participate, especially as they had managed to instruct counsel and engage with proceedings. Extended disclosure was ordered, including the third purported restructure, as it was relevant to the pleaded issues and necessary for fair determination. Privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent disclosure, as it is addressed by the Practice Direction. Costs of the adjournment application were awarded against the defendants on a joint and several basis for 30% of the claimant's costs,...

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused; extended disclosure ordered; costs awarded against defendants (in part)

Orders

  • Application to adjourn refused for all defendants.
  • Order for extended disclosure including the third purported restructure as an issue for disclosure.