Jennifer Webster v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] EWHC 530 (KB)
Jennifer Marie Bridgett Webster v HMRC
16 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2697 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued the government. The government wanted to see who was paying for the lawsuit. The judge said the person suing had to show who was paying, even if it meant losing that funding.
Key Facts
- •Defendant applied for inspection of documents disclosed by Claimant pursuant to a September 2022 order.
- •The order required standard disclosure, including documents relating to the Claimant and her solicitors' interactions with third parties concerning FATCA, including those funding the claim.
- •Claimant disclosed documents but redacted the principal third-party funder's identity.
- •Claimant's application for permission to appeal the disclosure order was refused.
- •Trial is one month away.
Legal Principles
Documents relevant to a pleaded defence (abuse of process in this case) must be disclosed in standard disclosure unless a valid legal basis for non-disclosure exists (e.g., legal professional privilege).
Deputy Master Fine's Order and subsequent judgment of Mrs Justice Collins Rice
Relevance of documents for disclosure purposes has already been determined and cannot be challenged at this late stage unless there is a proper application to vary the order or appeal.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice's judgment
A party wishing to challenge the validity of a defence should do so via an application to strike out the defence, not through attempts to avoid full disclosure at a late stage.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice's judgment
The concept of abuse of process by a public authority may consider a wide range of factors, including public policy and administration of justice, and doesn't necessarily depend on malicious or vitiating motives of a funder.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice's judgment, referencing Broxton v McClelland [1995] EMLR 485
Outcomes
The court ordered inspection (de-redaction) of the redacted documents, requiring disclosure of the third-party funder's identity.
The court found no ambiguity in the original order requiring disclosure, and the Claimant failed to appeal the relevance decision or disclose the documents fully. The court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding relevance and the late stage of the proceedings.