In the case of Sandhu v. Sidhu and Kaur Rupert Butler is representing the 2nd Defendant, Dr. Kaur, in an ongoing committal application being used to aid enforcement of a judgment against the 1st Defendant exceeding £5 million. On 14th March 2012, Mr. Justice Norris gave judgment on the eve of the committal trial refusing the Applicant’s application against a non-party, who was due to be called as a witness for the 2nd Defendant, to compel specific disclosure of electronic meta-data held in the computers at his accountancy practice.
The Judge agreed with the 2nd Defendant’s arguments and held that a committal application alleging a false statement of truth was alleging a public wrong, Malgar Ltd v RE Leach (Engineering) Ltd [2000] C.P. Rep. 39 applied, and so there should be rigorous control of the conduct of such proceedings. If specific disclosure were ordered, the likelihood of a further adjournment of the trial was high and so the consequences of ordering disclosure were more serious than the consequences of not ordering it. If disclosure were not ordered, the committal application would proceed on the same evidence that would have been before the judge at a previous attempted trial. It was not right that proceedings in the public interest should be conducted in such a way as to produce material at the last minute where a respondent was facing the threat of imprisonment.
Read the case report here. (Source: Lawtel)
