Trico Limited v Buckingham 18-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 180A (18 September 2019)

Trico Limited v Buckingham 18-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 180A (18 September 2019)

The court ordered the defendant to file a further affidavit clarifying his position regarding all devices received from Heritage Oil Plc, as the previous affidavits lacked sufficient detail in light of new information from Heritage. The court refused discovery of further contact details and phone records between the defendant and Ms Hollis, finding the request disproportionate and of limited evidential value. The application for disclosure of the identity of users of two telephone numbers was dismissed as the defendant's affidavit was accepted and confidentiality was not overridden. Regarding the English proceedings, the court ordered limited discovery: the defendant must disclose...

Citation
[2019] JRC 180A
Parties
Plaintiff: Trico Ltd; Defendant: Buckingham
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Affidavit of Discovery, Proportionality in Discovery, Cross Jurisdictional Proceedings, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Discovery Specific Discovery Affidavit of Discovery Proportionality in Discovery Cross Jurisdictional Proceedings Quantum of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trico Ltd

Plaintiff

Buckingham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should provide a further affidavit regarding all devices received from Heritage Oil Plc.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to discovery of details of contact between the defendant and his former personal assistant, including phone records.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of the identity of users of two telephone numbers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the defendant to file a further affidavit clarifying his position regarding all devices received from Heritage Oil Plc, as the previous affidavits lacked sufficient detail in light of new information from Heritage. The court refused discovery of further contact details and phone records between the defendant and Ms Hollis, finding the request disproportionate and of limited evidential value. The application for disclosure of the identity of users of two telephone numbers was dismissed as the defendant's affidavit was accepted and confidentiality was not overridden. Regarding the English proceedings, the court ordered limited discovery: the defendant must disclose...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Defendant to file a further affidavit within 21 days clarifying his position regarding all devices received from Heritage Oil Plc and which devices were searched.
  • Defendant to disclose correspondence between Albion and the defendant in the English proceedings falling within paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct and Protocols.