'Laurence' v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis

Pre-action disclosure is inappropriate where the proposed claim is not sufficiently formulated to identify the alleged damage and the issues between the parties. The court must be able to assess whether the claim is properly one for damages and what disclosure, if any, is appropriate. Where the claim can be pleaded without disclosure, the application should be refused. A claimant’s limited authority to make an application rather than commence proceedings does not justify relaxing these requirements.

The claimant, formerly a police informer, sought pre-action disclosure from the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis under Part 31 of the CPR. He contemplated claims in negligence and contract concerning the handling and termination of his role, including alleged psychiatric damage and risks to himself and his family.

The respondent refused disclosure, relying on confidentiality and public interest immunity, and referred to Carnduff and Rock v the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 WLR 1786. District Judge Taylor dismissed the application. The appeal concerned whether disclosure should be ordered before proceedings, including whether the documents should first be produced to the court.

1. Appeal dismissed; application refused. The claimant’s letter of claim did not provide an appropriate basis for pre-action disclosure. The proposed claim could properly be pleaded without disclosure, so disclosure was not necessary to launch proceedings.
2. A pre-action disclosure application requires a properly formulated claim. The court must be able to determine whether the claim is properly one for damages, what the issues are, the extent to which they are accepted by the respondent, whether they can be litigated without disclosure, and whether disclosure is needed and, if so, its appropriate nature and extent.
3. The proposed claim was inadequately defined. The allegations left the underlying complaints uncertain, and the letter did not identify the nature of the alleged damage with sufficient clarity to assess the viability of the complaints as a basis for damages.
4. The claimant’s limited certificate permitting the application but not proceedings did not justify departing from the procedural rules. The court recognised the practical difficulty but held that it could not distort the proper disclosure exercise.
5. The court therefore did not determine the public interest immunity issue or the suggested procedure of producing documents to the court under Conway v Rimmer [1968] App Cases 910. The reference to Carnduff and Rock v the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 WLR 1786 did not affect the threshold conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from District Judge Taylor’s refusal of pre-action disclosure and ordered that the application be refused.
• Central London County Court: dismissed the claimant’s application for pre-action disclosure.