London Borough of Lambeth v AM

A stay pending appeal depends on whether refusing or granting it risks injustice to either party. The court should weigh the merits and importance of the proposed appeal against the delay, cost, loss of a trial date and prejudice caused by a stay.

Specific disclosure is discretionary. It requires documents to be, or to have been, within the opposing party’s control and relevant to the pleaded issues. A party’s statement that no further documents exist will generally be accepted unless there is evidence of an inadequate search or dishonesty. Appellate courts should intervene in case-management decisions only where the high threshold for appellate interference is met.

The claimant brought a breach of confidence claim concerning the defendant’s use of information obtained from a redacted local-authority file. A deputy master dismissed the defendant’s application for further disclosure and replies to Part 18 requests.

The defendant sought a stay of the trial pending an appeal against that case-management decision. The application raised whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit and importance to justify vacating a trial listed to begin within days, and whether the requested documents were relevant to the pleaded issues.

1. Stay pending appeal. The essential question was whether granting or refusing a stay created a risk of injustice to one or both parties, applying Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065 and Leicester Circuits Ltd v Coates Brothers plc [2002] EWCA Civ 474. The court had to consider the proposed appeal’s merits, the importance of the documents sought and the effect on trial fairness, alongside the delay, cost, court resources and prejudice caused by vacating the trial.
2. Disclosure. Specific disclosure is discretionary under rule 31.12 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. It may be ordered only where the documents are, or have been, within the other party’s control and are relevant to the pleaded issues. A disclosure statement that no further documents exist will usually be treated as conclusive absent evidence of an inadequate search or dishonest certification. The deputy master had correctly applied the standard-disclosure test in rule 31.6.
3. Proposed appeal. The defendant’s complaints about subject-access requests, ICO proceedings, employee records and general data-protection compliance were not relevant to the pleaded breach-of-confidence issues. The disclosed case history was sufficient in the absence of a pleaded issue concerning falsification or manipulation. Privilege was properly claimed over communications between the claimant’s solicitors and the confidential informant; ordinary privilege rules were not displaced merely because the claim arose from public-law duties concerning children.
4. The proposed appeal had no merit. The deputy master’s decision was plainly open to her, disclosed no error of law or relevant procedural error, and was not perverse. Under paragraph 4.6 of Practice Direction 52A, the costs and loss of the trial date substantially outweighed the marginal significance of the disclosure issue. The stay application was dismissed and the trial was to proceed.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Deputy Master Hill QC dismissed the defendant’s application for further disclosure in a judgment handed down on 28 May 2020.
2. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The defendant sought a stay pending appeal. The application was dismissed and the trial was directed to proceed.