Court dismisses disclosure applications in matter regarding costs
Rudd v Bridle & Anor  EWHC 1986 (QB)
- Related Member(s):
- Guy Vassall-Adams QC, Tim James-Matthews
- Related Practice Area(s):
- Media and Information Law
- Queen's Bench Division (Media & Communications List)
This case concerned applications made by the claimant following an earlier trial at which Warby J made orders for costs. These orders were that the claimant pay the company’s costs on a standard basis, but that the defendant indemnify him against that liability and pay all the costs of his claim against the company, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
The claimant made applications seeking disclosure of the identity of the individuals, companies or entities who had financed or provided financial support to the defendants during the litigation, and related documents. Secondly, the claimant sought an order for the disclosure of three documents mentioned in a witness statement.
Considering the evidence, the court held that it had not been shown any authority that supported the view that a third-party disclosure order would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In any event, the court held that it would not grant one as a matter of discretion.
Concerning the claimant’s witness statement application, the court disagreed with the claimant’s interpretation of the documents referred to in the disputed witness statement. The court held that it would not order disclosure in any event given that the purpose of the application was unrelated to the charging order proceedings.
The court dismissed both applications and invited written submissions for consequential matters that may arise.
Guy Vassall-Adams QC and Tim James-Matthews were involved in this case.