London Borough of Bromley v Heckel

London Borough of Bromley v Heckel

The disclosure application was refused because the defendant credibly asserted he did not possess the documents sought, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The extension of time was refused because Bromley could have pleaded its claim without the documents, failed to act promptly, and provided no good reason for the delay.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Bromley; Defendant: Stephen Heckel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure and Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Extension of Time, Project Management Liability, Abuse of Process

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

Stephen Heckel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure and Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be ordered to disclose documents allegedly in his possession
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted an extension of time to serve Particulars of Claim

Ratio Decidendi

The disclosure application was refused because the defendant credibly asserted he did not possess the documents sought, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The extension of time was refused because Bromley could have pleaded its claim without the documents, failed to act promptly, and provided no good reason for the delay.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for disclosure dismissed
  • Application for extension of time to serve Particulars of Claim refused