ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOLMAN)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
| TINKLER & ANR
|- and -
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent appeared in person.
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Rix:
"...the file papers of the Legal Services Department of the Cumbrian police appertaining to the dealings of the Cumbrian police with the defendant"
No doubt the witness summons served on the CAA was in similar terms.
"1) The hearing fixed for 27 July 2011 shall be for directions only.
2) The claimant shall by no later than 4.00pm on 5 July 2011 serve a further affidavit identifying the documents produced by the Civil Aviation Authority which are alleged to evidence breach by the defendant of the injunction order and how it is alleged that they are in breach.
3) The claimant shall file and serve a core bundle, case summary and proposed directions by 4.00 pm on 22 July 2011
4) The defendant has permission to issue an application for third party disclosure against Civil Aviation Authority and the Serious Fraud Office, such application specifying the documents sought and the grounds on which they are sought to be listed on 27 July 2011
5) Costs be in the application."
"Attending the Manchester District Registry of the High Court before HHJ Holman at short notice following a call from the court indicating that our attendance was required. HHJ Holman indicated that the case has been listed in order to enable Imogen Brooks [of the CAA] to attend in response to the summons. LD confirmed that the documents had been provided by Ms Brooks and it was for that reason she was advised that her attendance was not required and the court had been asked to vacate the hearing date. HHJ Holman indicated he wanted to ensure that the case was ready for trial. He asked whether we were simply relying upon Mr Howarth's evidence, LD confirmed that we were and that there was no further evidence that we intended to rely upon other than the first, second and third affidavits of Mr Howarth. Unfortunately the judge only had a copy of the third affidavit of Mr Howarth available on the court file. The judge pointed out that although the third affidavit of Mr Howarth exhibited the documents disclosed by Ms Brooks they did not identify which documents the claimants alleged evidence the breach of the injunction. HHJ Holman stated that the claimants needed to file a further affidavit setting out which documents evidenced such a breach. HHJ Holman also indicated that Mr Elliott was entitled to be protected in this way and it was not right or fair that he should be expected to trawl through the evidence himself. The judge therefore indicated that the hearing on 27 July ought to proceed by way of directions hearing and an order was made in the following terms."
Mr Dammone then set out the terms of the order made by HHJ Holman, which I have read into this judgment.
Lord Justice Lloyd:
Order: Application for permission to appeal granted; Appeal allowed in part