On 3 September 2026, judgment was handed down in Benski & another v Pulse Films Ltd & others [2026] EWHC 2280 (Comm).

The Court dismissed the Applicants’ application for pre-action disclosure under CPR rule 31.16, which was made in connection with an intimated claim arising out of the sale of Pulse Films to Vice Media Group and the latter’s insolvency in 2023.

The applicants (who were the prospective claimants) had sought pre-action disclosure in connection with an intimated claim based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy.

The Judge refused the application, agreeing with the Respondents that it failed both on jurisdictional grounds and as a matter of discretion, as a result (amongst other things) of the vagueness of the claim which made it impossible to establish that all categories of documents sought would fall within standard disclosure; the broad and imprecise document categories sought; the disproportionate cost burden of the exercise on the Respondents had it been ordered; and the lack of clarity in the formulation of the applicants' substantive (intimated) claim.

Jonathan Allcock appeared for the successful respondents, instructed by Guy Harper of Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Read the judgment in full: Benski & Anor v Pulse Films Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2280 (Comm)