Holmes v Lingard and Ors [2018] JRC 184 (03 October 2018)

The plaintiff's application failed because it sought evidence rather than clarification of pleadings, was unsupported by affidavit, was premature in advance of general discovery, and did not meet the requirements for specific or pre-action discovery. Article 11 does not justify the orders sought.

Citation: [2018] JRC 184
Parties: Plaintiff: Mr Holmes; First Defendant: Harry Lingard; Second Defendant: Home Farm Developments Limited; Third Party: Mr Sobey; Third Party: Mr Robertson
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 03 October 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Discovery, Further Information, Pre Action Disclosure, Evidence

Civil Procedure Discovery Further Information Pre Action Disclosure Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Mr Holmes

Plaintiff

Harry Lingard

First Defendant

Home Farm Developments Limited

Second Defendant

Mr Sobey

Third Party

Mr Robertson

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further information or specific documents under Rule 6/15 of the Royal Court Rules 2004
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pre-action discovery
3 Whether Article 11 of the Civil Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 entitles the plaintiff to the documents sought

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application refused