Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment represents my decision in respect of an application for specific discovery brought by the plaintiff, which was heard on 12 th September, 2016.
"1. The First Defendant shall within 7 days provide the Plaintiff with copies of the documents listed in Schedule 1 not disclosed in its List of Documents for discovery verified by affidavit filed on 21 March 2016 and provide a full and complete List of Documents verified by affidavit together with copies of any other documents enumerated but omitted from its original List of Documents;
The Plaintiff may within these proceedings make use an email sent to LWR Law by the First Defendant on 24 February 2016 @ 12.40 a copy of which is at Schedule 2;
The Second Defendant shall within 7 days provide the plaintiff with copies of the documents listed in Schedule 3 not disclosed in its List of Documents for discovery verified by affidavit filed on 21 March 2016 and provide a full and complete affidavit of discovery with copies of any other documents enumerated but omitted from its original List of Documents;
The Second Defendant shall include copies of the Takilla Company records including minutes of meetings, redacted as appropriate, and each Resolution of the Directors made in regard to the management of Eulah and the involvement of the Plaintiff."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.