![]() ![]() The claimants resisted the application on the basis that no documents were mentioned in these paragraphs, arguing that references to the “review” were references to a process. “the consequences of the original negligence, some of which were only revealed by PwC’s Review.”.“In the event, however, since their instruction in relation to the Review in around March 2021, PwC has uncovered multiple further issues as a result of the negligence” and.“it was initially anticipated that the bulk of the Review had already been substantively completed by the ”. ![]() “ PwC were instructed to undertake a review of the tax affairs”.The four instances where documents were said to be “mentioned” were: The second defendant asserted that documents were “mentioned” in four paragraphs of Ray-Smith 3 due to those paragraphs referring to a “review” which PwC had been instructed to undertake. The second defendant made an application for an order pursuant to CPR PD51U paragraphs 21.1 and 21.4 requiring the claimants to produce documents which were said to be mentioned in a witness statement provided by their lawyer (“Ray-Smith 3”) which had been filed in support of a pleading amendment application. ![]() The proceedings concerned a claim for damages against the claimants’ former solicitors, Taylor Wessing, and former accountants, MSR LLP, for alleged negligent advice in relation to Morten and Thomas Hoegh’s tax affairs. the need to ensure the case is dealt with expeditiously, fairly and at a proportionate cost.”īackground.the financial position of each party and.the ease and expense of searching for and retrieval of any particular document (taking into account any limitations on the information available and on the likely accuracy of any costs estimates).the likelihood of documents existing that will have probative value in supporting or undermining a party’s claim or defence.the importance of the case, including any non-monetary relief sought.the nature and complexity of the issues in the proceedings.“ 6.4 In all cases, an order for Extended Disclosure must be reasonable and proportionate having regard to the overriding objective including the following factors. ![]() “ 21.1 A party may at any time request a copy of a document which has not already been provided by way of disclosure but is mentioned in-Ģ1.2 Copies of documents mentioned in a statement of case, witness evidence or an expert’s report and requested in writing should be provided by agreement unless the request is unreasonable or a right to withhold production is claimed.Ģ1.3 A document is mentioned where it is referred to, cited in whole or in part or there is a direct allusion to it.Ģ1.4 Subject to rule 35.10(4), the court may make an order requiring a document to be produced if it is satisfied such an order is reasonable and proportionate (as defined in paragraph 6.4).” CPR PD 51U paragraph 21 concerns the production of “documents referred to in evidence” and provides: The case provides a comprehensive and useful overview of the case law on the topic to date and confirms the current position as to when a document is “mentioned” for the purposes of PD51U.ĬPR PD51U. In Morten Hoegh and Thomas Hoegh v Taylor Wessing LLP and MSR Partners LLP 4 WLUK 137, the court considered an application for the production of documents referred to in a witness statement pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 51U (“PD51U”). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |