Glidepath BV and Others v Thompson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CLARKE |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1071 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 28 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | A3/2005/1111 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1071
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE COLMAN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Clarke
A3/2005/1111
THE APPLICANT APPEARED IN PERSON
THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT ATTEND AND WERE NOT REPRESENTED
Thursday, 28th July 2005
This an application by Mr Onwuka for permission to appeal against an order of Colman J dated 29th April 2005. By that order the judge dismissed the applicant's application for disclosure of certain documents from the court file. By the same order the judge ordered the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs of the application, such costs to be assessed. The first defendant is Mr John Thompson.
The application was made by the applicant in proceedings to which the applicant was not a party. The application is made under CPR 5.4(5). The applicant is not involved at all in the litigation in which the order was made.
The applicant was, however, represented before Colman J on the application for disclosure. He was represented by counsel, although today he has appeared in person. I will call the action in which he made the application the Glidepath proceedings, because Glidepath Holdings are the claimants in those proceedings. Mr Thompson is one of a number of defendants. They arise out of a multi-party joint venture agreement.
Those proceedings have taken up the time of the court in the past. Indeed, I myself delivered a judgment dismissing an appeal against an order of Eady J for costs in those proceedings on 19th April of this year. In the proceedings a number of allegations of fraud are made. Indeed a number of orders, including Norwich Pharmacal orders, were also made. This application is not, however, directly concerned with the issues in those proceedings.
The allegations in them relate, among other things, to the transfer of part of the business of a company called Spherion UK Limited ("Spherion") to a company called STA/Rel Q ("STA"). The transfer agreement contained an English arbitration clause and after court proceedings were initiated those proceedings were stayed by the order of Eady J on 30th July 2004 under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In this application I have seen both a copy of Eady J's judgment and indeed a copy of my own judgment.
Before the stay was imposed, a freezing order was made against Mr Thompson and, as I understand it, Norwich Pharmacal orders were made against various people. All those hearings were in private. Unsuccessful applications to discharge those orders were also made and indeed heard in private.
The applicant was employed by Spherion in February 2003. After the transfer to STA he resigned. He subsequently commenced proceedings in an employment tribunal seeking damages for constructive dismissal. There were, at one time, as I understand it, six respondents: Spherion Technology UK, RelQ Europe, Systems Testing Associates, Glidepath, Mr Loosli, and Spherion Corporation USA. However, as I understand it, Glidepath and Mr Loosli are no longer parties. The applicant tells me that he agreed to a proposal that Glidepath should be released from the proceedings because he was persuaded that they were not privy to what he said that Mr Thompson had been up to. He makes a number of serious allegations against Mr Thompson.
It appears that the issues in the employment proceedings are extensive. They have been on foot for some considerable time. Indeed, a hearing on the merits is now part heard. It has lasted 6 days, the original estimate being some 14 days. I understand that the applicant is now waiting for the case to be relisted. The hearing began on 16th May.
As I understand it, the purpose of the application to Colman J in the Glidepath proceedings was to obtain production of a number of court documents in order to assist the applicant, either in his proceedings in the employment tribunal, or in a High Court action in which an injunction has been granted against him which he seeks to set aside. He has told me that he is in difficulties in making an application to discharge the injunction because he has not, at present, access to public funding.
The basis of the applicant's case in the employment tribunal is that, first, he was unlawfully excluded from the transfer of an undertaking, which arose by way of the transfer of part of the business to STA in October 2002, and, secondly, that he was subject to adverse treatment on the grounds of his race.
The injunction proceedings had been brought by Spherion in January 2002. In those proceedings Spherion sought the return of a number of confidential documents which it was said that the applicant had misappropriated during his employment and retained. The application for the injunction was granted and indeed complied with by the applicant. That is the injunction which the applicant seeks to set aside in the future.
The documents which the applicant sought were documents in the Glidepath proceedings court file, in particular copies of judgments and orders. In fact, he has some of the judgments since they are in the bundle. It appears, however, that he does not have the orders.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Lewis Silkin LLP
...to determine these issues between the parties to the arbitration. Ali… concerned an arbitration to which the 1996 Act did not apply; Glidepath BV v Thompson [2005] 2 Lloyds Rep 549 was a case where the court was determining an application made by a stranger to the arbitration. I cannot acce......