Search
In an important judgment of the TCC, Azeem Suterwalla KC and Khatija Hafesji (alongside Daniel Toledano KC of One Essex Court) successfully persuaded the court that Interested Parties in procurement claims were capable of being treated as “parties” for the purposes of specific disclosure applications under CPR r.31.12.
Allwyn, the Interested Party to the TNLC v Gambling Commission litigation (one of the Top 20 cases of 2025) unsuccessfully tried to resist a specific disclosure application brought against it by TNLC under CPR r.31.12 on the basis that as an Interested Party it was a “non-party” to the litigation, and the application needed to be brought under r.31.17 instead (which imposes a higher threshold for the making of a disclosure order).
The TCC rejected that argument, accepting TNLC’s submissions that “the position of an interested party… is not that an interested party automatically becomes a party with all the rights and obligations that a party has under the CPR but that the court, on any application against an interested party, has to decide whether it is appropriate to treat the interested party as a party for the purpose of applying a particular provision of the CPR.”
The scope of Allwyn’s involvement in the proceedings, which includes filing a Statement of Case that relies on documents not otherwise disclosed in the proceedings, made it appropriate to treat it as a party for the purposes of a specific disclosure order under CPR r.31.12.
The judgment of Sir Vivian Ramsey can be found here.