Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd made an interim application against Mr. Gary John Fielding and Mrs. Sally Anne Fielding for the disclosure and inspection of documents, amidst complex procedural maneuverings. The court dismissed the application under CPR 31.14 except for conceded documents and allowed specific disclosure for only the board minutes of August 29, 2007. Previous litigation steps were referenced, and the judgment elucidated standards for document inspection and specific disclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules.
JUDGMENT
5 th September 2014
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC:
This is my extemporary judgment on an interim application in a claim by Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd (as claimant) against Mr Gary John Fielding and his wife Mrs Sally Anne Fielding (claim number 3LV30284).
This litigation has already been the subject of a judgment delivered by the Vice-Chancellor, Mr Justice Norris, sitting in Liverpool on 15 th May 2014. Mr Justice Norris dismissed an application by the defendants for security for costs. A transcript of his judgment has been obtained and it bears the neutral citation reference [2014] EWHC 1908 (Ch) . Paragraphs 1 to 11 of that judgment summarise the background to, and the history of, the present litigation. I do not propose to burden this judgment, being delivered just before 4 o’clock on the afternoon of Friday 5 th September 2014, by repeating those matters.
From the perspective of the parties’ legal representatives, this is clearly going to be “fun” litigation, with both parties adopting tactical positions and taking tactical points at every conceivable opportunity. They will also no doubt accuse each other of taking that line.
The present application by the defendants was dated 20 th August 2014, although the application notice was only sealed on Friday 29 th August 2014, and I understand that it was only served on Monday 1 st September 2014, giving the minimum three clear days’ notice.
The matter has also been complicated by two further events:
The first is a change in the identity of the claimant’s solicitors from Hill Dickinson to Gunner Cooke (although that is a change of form rather than substance because the relevant fee earner, Mr Harvey Stringfellow, remains the same).
The second complicating factor is that at some stage between the preparation of this application and this hearing, the defendants’ solicitors conducted a search at Companies House which disclosed that the claimant company (which is in liquidation) had been dissolved on 20 th August 2014. It was Mr Mark Cawson QC (appearing for the defendants and applicants) who first raised this matter (hitherto not apparently known to the claimant or its solicitors) in his written skeleton argument of 4 th September 2014.
Mr Cawson pointed out that so long as it was dissolved, the claimant had no standing to continue the present proceedings, although he acknowledged that if the company were to be restored to the register (pursuant to section 1029 of the Companies Act 2006) then i