Application for non-party disclosure

The factual background involved the Claimant, Mr. Parker, being ‘Google-spoofed’ into contacting a claims management company instead of his insurer following a road traffic accident. He entered into a credit hire agreement with Spectra, which was later challenged by Skyfire on the grounds of misrepresentation and enforceability. Skyfire’s application for non-party disclosure of call recordings was initially refused by the County Court, leading to this appeal.

The High Court found that the threshold conditions for non-party disclosure under CPR Part 31.17 were not satisfied. It held that the call recordings sought by Skyfire would not likely affect the case’s outcome as the contract with Spectra was valid and enforceable until avoided, which Mr. Parker had not indicated he would do. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the disclosure was not necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or save costs.

The Legal Principles that applied to this case were as follows:

  • Non-party disclosure under CPR 31.17 required necessity for fair claim disposal
  • Affirmation of a contract is a question of fact and can be by conduct

Avoidance of a contract must be realistic for non-party disclosure to be necessary


The key point of this case is the emphasis on the necessity for non-party disclosure in fair claim disposal. Skyfire failed to demonstrate the essential conditions for disclosure under CPR Part 31.17(3)(b) and the appeal was dismissed.

Parker v Skyfire Insurance Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1060 (KB)

Nicola Smith, Costs Consultant