Mr N Bryant v PCG Entertainment plc and others: 2301438/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s application to amend the claim form is granted, as set out in the issues contained in the case management order;[2]The Claimant’s application for additional information from the Respondents is refused.REASONS
[1]The reasons are summarised in the case management order reasons. The Claimant requested written reasons for the decision set out in paragraph 2 above.[2]Mr Fodder highlighted a number of instances in the response form where the Respondents had suggested that there were other, as yet unspecified, reasons for the decisions that they had made. Mr Smith agreed that full disclosure would be made at the appropriate time. Mr Fodder suggested that disclosure in the Respondents’ witness statements would be too late for the Claimant.[3]I accepted that the Claimant, and indeed the Tribunal, would need to know the detail of the Respondents’ reasons for making the decisions that led to the termination of the consultancy agreement, although I noted that the response was reasonably clear in general terms. I concluded that the questions being raised by the Claimant amounted to a request for evidence, which would be Case Number: 2301438/2017 answered in due course by disclosure of documents. Any perceived gaps in the disclosure process could be tackled by way of an application for specific disclosure.