AZT v The Home Office [2019] EWHC 4 (QB) (04 January 2019)

AZT v The Home Office [2019] EWHC 4 (QB) (04 January 2019)

The Defendant's repeated and serious failures to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, causing delay and additional costs, justify an order for indemnity costs. However, as the Defendant has now engaged with the disclosure process and a fair trial remains possible, the high threshold for a debarring...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 4 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: AZT; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (false Imprisonment, Disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application (disclosure, Costs, Debarring)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, False Imprisonment, Costs (indemnity Basis), Debarring Orders, Case Management, Electronic Disclosure, Detention by Public Authorities
Civil Procedure Tort Law Public Law Disclosure Obligations False Imprisonment Costs (indemnity Basis) Debarring Orders Case Management +2 more

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

Parties

AZT

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (false Imprisonment, Disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application (disclosure, Costs, Debarring)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has complied with its disclosure obligations under CPR Part 31 and related orders
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be debarred from defending the claim for non-compliance with disclosure orders
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to indemnity costs due to the Defendant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's repeated and serious failures to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, causing delay and additional costs, justify an order for indemnity costs. However, as the Defendant has now engaged with the disclosure process and a fair trial remains possible, the high threshold for a debarring order is not yet met.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Defendant to comply with agreed disclosure timetable and specific disclosure items by set dates
  • Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of and occasioned by the application on an indemnity basis