M3 Property Ltd v Zedhomes Ltd

M3 Property Ltd v Zedhomes Ltd

The application for further forensic inspection is refused because the claimant already has substantial points to challenge the authenticity of the documents, the destruction of devices is supported by evidence, further inspection would be disproportionate in cost and effort, and disclosure (including E-disclosure) will be provided. The amount in dispute does not justify the additional expense.

Parties
Claimant: M3 Property Limited; Defendant: ZedHomes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application refused; amendment to earlier order allowed
Legal Topics
Electronic Discovery, Inspection of Property, Costs, Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Electronic Discovery Inspection of Property Costs Settlement Agreements

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M3 Property Limited

Claimant

ZedHomes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order forensic inspection of the defendant's electronic devices for evidence of an alleged settlement email and letter
  2. 2 Whether the alleged settlement email and letter were fabricated
  3. 3 Whether the application for further inspection is necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further forensic inspection is refused because the claimant already has substantial points to challenge the authenticity of the documents, the destruction of devices is supported by evidence, further inspection would be disproportionate in cost and effort, and disclosure (including E-disclosure) will be provided. The amount in dispute does not justify the additional expense.

Court Disposition

Application refused; amendment to earlier order allowed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for further forensic inspection of defendant's devices is refused
  • Claimant's amendment to the terms of the order made in early March 2012 is allowed