Non-party company ordered to give disclosure in place of defendant director (Constantin v Ecclestone)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Court details
• Facts
• Did the director have to disclose company documents?
• Non-party disclosure
• The threshold test
• Do the documents have to be specifically identified?
• Restrictions on the scope of disclosure
• Should the court order cross-examination of a witness in foreign proceedings?

Article summary

DR analysis: the High Court granted orders under CPR 31.17 for disclosure to be made by corporate entities not party to the proceedings. The Chancery Division held that third party disclosure was necessary for the fair disposal of the claim. Although the first defendant was a director of the same company, disclosure of documents by him would not be appropriate in this case and within the scope of his directors’ duties where the company had an objection to the disclosure. In relation to the disclosure order, the court applied the test in Three Rivers and gave additional guidance on the criteria to be applied. The court also addressed the issue of calling a witness for cross-examination on hearsay evidence under CPR 33.4.