Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors

The court held that cross-examination on a Norwich Pharmacal affidavit sworn by a party to substantive proceedings concerning overlapping issues would pre-empt cross-examination at trial and is not just and convenient. The claimant is not entitled to compel a defendant to submit to cross-examination prior to trial to assist in establishing its substantive case. The alternative procedure of CPR Part 18 requests is sufficient and has moved the claimant's case forward.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Stokoe Partnership Solicitors; Respondent/defendant: Patrick Tristam Finucane Grayson; Respondent/defendant: Grayson + Co Limited; Defendant: Stuart Robert Page; Defendant: Page Corporate Investigations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Cross Examination Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Cross Examination, Affidavit Evidence, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Injunctions Disclosure Norwich Pharmacal Orders Cross Examination Affidavit Evidence Interlocutory Applications

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

Parties

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors

Appellant/claimant

Patrick Tristam Finucane Grayson

Respondent/defendant

Grayson + Co Limited

Respondent/defendant

Stuart Robert Page

Defendant

Page Corporate Investigations Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Cross Examination Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order cross-examination of a party on a Norwich Pharmacal affidavit prior to trial
  2. 2 Whether inconsistent affidavits justify cross-examination
  3. 3 Appropriate use of CPR Part 18 requests versus cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that cross-examination on a Norwich Pharmacal affidavit sworn by a party to substantive proceedings concerning overlapping issues would pre-empt cross-examination at trial and is not just and convenient. The claimant is not entitled to compel a defendant to submit to cross-examination prior to trial to assist in establishing its substantive case. The alternative procedure of CPR Part 18 requests is sufficient and has moved the claimant's case forward.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Claimant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.