Glidepath Holding BV & Ors v Thompson & Ors

CPR 5.4(5) is not a general route for obtaining documents to support proceedings in another forum. An applicant who needs documents for employment tribunal proceedings or separate High Court proceedings should ordinarily apply in those proceedings. The court or tribunal hearing that application can determine relevance and make any necessary order. Resort to CPR 5.4(5) in unrelated proceedings is inappropriate unless obtaining the documents in the other forum is both absolutely necessary and impossible. Permission to appeal will be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error or realistic prospect of success. A costs order may stand while the amount remains to be assessed.

Mr Onwuka, who was not a party to the underlying multi-party Glidepath proceedings, applied under CPR 5.4(5) for copies of court-file documents. He wanted them for an employment tribunal claim and for separate High Court injunction proceedings. Colman J dismissed the application and ordered him to pay Mr Thompson’s costs, subject to assessment.

The application for permission to appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. The respondents did not attend or appear. The issues were whether disclosure should have been ordered in the Glidepath proceedings, whether there was a realistic prospect of successfully challenging the costs order, and whether two additional documents should be admitted.

Application refused.

1. Documents for use in another forum. The applicant sought documents to advance proceedings in an employment tribunal or separate High Court injunction proceedings. The proper course was to apply in the proceedings in which the documents were said to be relevant. Those courts or tribunals could determine relevance and make an appropriate order. Using CPR 5.4(5) in the Glidepath proceedings was inappropriate because the documents could be sought in the other forums. Resort to the rule may be justified where it is absolutely necessary and the documents cannot be obtained in the relevant forum, but that qualification was not satisfied.
2. Merits of the proposed appeal. Colman J had given a careful analysis of the legal principles and determined the arguments raised. No arguable error was identified, and none of the proposed grounds gave rise to a realistic prospect that the order would be shown to be wrong. Permission to appeal on the merits was therefore refused.
3. Costs. The order that costs follow the event was not shown to be wrong in principle or on the facts. If Mr Thompson had incurred no costs, the applicant would not be ordered to pay costs on assessment. The freezing order might be relevant to that assessment, but the court had not seen it and could not determine its effect.
4. Additional documents. Two further letters concerning ongoing investigations could have been placed before Colman J if relevant. In any event, they could not have altered the decision. The application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against Colman J’s order of 29 April 2005 was refused. The order dismissed the application for disclosure and directed that the applicant pay Mr Thompson’s costs, subject to assessment.
2. High Court, Commercial Court Division: Colman J dismissed the application for disclosure of documents from the court file and ordered costs to follow the event, subject to assessment.