The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from a County Court discovery ruling on three independent grounds: the application was premature because no order had been drawn up or authenticated; the proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success given the House v The King standard applicable to discretionary practice and procedure decisions; and no substantial injustice arose because the applicant could bring a fresh discovery application, including after amending her pleadings. The Court confirmed that the test for discoverability under r 29.01.1(3) of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018 is distinct from the admissibility test in s 55 of the Evidence Act 2008, but found on a fair reading that the primary judge had applied the correct rule despite an errant footnote reference to s 55. The question of whether documents containing complaints made after the date of alleged abuse about abuse occurring before that date are discoverable was acknowledged as debatable but was not resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.