1 Nov 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no appealable decision by the District Court on the disclosure application; the Judge had not granted or refused disclosure but had directed the prosecution to file a memorandum and left outstanding issues to be addressed in the District Court, so s33 appeal jurisdiction did not arise.
14 Jul 2022
The Court ordered limited particular discovery because documents relating to the wider set of declined applicants who completed the questionnaire were relevant to the pleaded allegation of an overarching strategy; the applicants narrowed their request to 79 questionnaire-completed applicants which made discovery proportionate; privacy concerns must be managed by requiring written consent from each applicant before their documents are released; discovery must be completed within 40 working days; costs reserved.
21 Jun 2021
Joinder under r 4.56 was refused because the proposed third party's presence was not necessary to adjudicate the existing constructive trust and testamentary promise claims, and because even if joinder was permissible the court would in its discretion refuse it due to the imminent trial, the prejudice and procedural disruption that joinder and the new causes of action would cause, and the likely need to vacate the hearing.
18 Jul 2019
No appeal jurisdiction existed because the District Court made no appealable ruling and a case review is not a 'trial' for s296 CPA purposes; even if s296 applied, leave to appeal would be refused because the issue is best determined at the substantive trial and the proposed appeal lacked merit; s57(2) is an offence of strict liability with a defence of total absence of fault available.
18 Apr 2019
No miscarriage of justice was established; the judge could properly find the prosecution proved the assault on the basis of witness testimony without reliance on the photographs, and procedural or evidential complaints raised on appeal were matters for trial and did not justify overturning the conviction.
14 May 2010
The application was refused at this stage because it was made too late notwithstanding that the materials' relevance was arguable; the court adopted a two‑stage approach permitting the fixture to proceed while leaving open a subsidiary hearing on past breaches if necessary.
23 Mar 2009
The High Court upheld the Family Court Judge's exercise of discretion to leave most contested affidavit material for the trial Judge to assess weight and relevance under s 36 PRA and Evidence Act principles, finding no error of law or principle; only two specific paragraphs (4.42 and 7.1(g)) were plainly irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and were ordered struck out.