JUDGMENT
Wednesday 23 rd July 2014
APPROVED JUDGMENT
JUDGE HODGE QC:
This is my preliminary extemporary judgment on an appeal by the defendants, Mr Jaswant Singh Dhillon and his wife Mrs Maidie Mohinder Kaur Dhillon, against an order of Master Marsh dated 7 th April 2014. The order from which the defendants seek to appeal was effectively one refusing relief from the sanction imposed by an earlier order of Master Marsh made on 18 th September 2013. This is my preliminary extemporary judgment on an application (included within the appellant’s notice) by the appellants/defendants to adduce fresh evidence that was not before the Master.
By an order made on 12 th June 2014 Mr Justice Birss directed a composite hearing, first of the appellants’ application for permission to appeal Master Marsh’s order and (subject to permission being granted) of the hearing of the substantive appeal. This is that rolled-up hearing.
On this appeal Mr Richard Ritchie (of counsel) appears for the appellants and Mr David Mayall (also of counsel) appears for the respondent/claimant, Mr Bagga Singh Sandhu, who is the maternal uncle of the first appellant.
The substantive litigation concerns a partnership dispute between the parties. By an order made by Deputy Master Jefferis on 13 th June 2013 it had been ordered (by paragraph 3) that the defendants should give the claimant and his advisers access to all the books and records of the two relevant partnerships and should afford the claimant and his advisers the opportunity to take copies of all and any parts of such books and records within 14 days of this order being served on the defendants’ solicitors. For that purpose, inspection was to take place at the offices of the defendants’ solicitors; and the parties’ solicitors were directed to liaise as to a convenient date and time within the 14-day period. That order had been made at a hearing where the defendants had not appeared.
The order included a declaration that the two partnerships in question had been dissolved on 26 th July 2012. That order was not complied with by the defendants (and appellants). As a result, the claimant (and respondent) applied for a supplemental order which, in the event, was made by consent. That order was dated 18 th September 2013 and it was made following the Master having read a letter from the defendants’ solicitors, who at that time were a firm called Fishman Brand Stone (or ‘FBS’). The consent order provided that unless the defendants (now t
