Chancery Division
Published February 5, 2008
Martin v Triggs Turner Barton (a Firm) and Others
The court was entitled to make an order to ensure that specific disclosure was carried out properly.
Ms Susan Prevezer, QC, sitting as a deputy Chancery Division judge so held on January 25, 2008, when, inter alia, dismissing an appeal against an order made by Deputy Master Behrens on June 5, 2007 for specific disclosure on application by the claimant, Dr Alison Mary Martin, against the defendants, Triggs Turner Barton, Triggs Wilkinson & Mann, both firms of solicitors, Judith Joyce Wynne Witherspoon and Timothy John Marshall Caton, in proceedings relating to the making of a will and administration of an estate.
Advertisement
HER LADYSHIP said that paragraph 5.4 of the Practice Direction in Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules required the court to take into account all the circumstances of a case and, in particular, the overriding objective to do justice set out in Part 1, when deciding whether or not to make an order for specific disclosure.
The efforts of the deputy master to find a pragmatic solution was an appropriate exercise of his discretionary case management powers in determining a request for specific disclosure; the order should not be interfered with.