Another success for the Memery Crystal Disputes team

In what is becoming an unnecessarily convoluted and protracted matter following the claimant’s numerous applications against various third parties the claimant applicant argued that (a) specific and early disclosure was necessary to oppose the Service Application.

In refusing the application for disclosure Arnold J decided he did not need to hear from opposing counsel (we presume being satisfied on the strength of the evidence and skeleton arguments before him) confirmed that (a) orders for specific and early disclosure should only be made in exceptional circumstances together with very compelling reasons and (b) in any event, the facts would be taken as pleaded at the hearing of the Service Application such that no prejudice would be suffered by the claimant and therefore the disclosure sought was unnecessary.

In support of its adjournment application the claimant argued that an adjournment of the hearing of the  Service Application was necessary as it had an outstanding application challenging privilege of various third party documents which had yet to be determined, and which if successful, the claimant would seek to deploy the documents in opposition to the Service Application.

As with the first application, Arnold J refused the adjournment application on the basis that facts would be taken as pleaded at the hearing of the Service Application.

As a result, 81% of costs incurred were awarded in our client’s favour.

The Service Application was duly heard over two days commencing 20 March by Mr. Justice Marcus Smith and judgment reserved.  We expect to receive judgment shortly so watch this space!