![]() There was, therefore, an unavoidable overlap between the application for the disclosure of specific documents and the application requiring the defendant to redo its electronic search pursuant to the claimant’s proposed search parameters. Also, the judge was unconvinced that the documents could be located without the assistance of electronic searches. ![]() ![]() The claimant complained that the defendant’s electronic search was unsatisfactory and should be conducted again using additional search parameters as well as specific disclosure given of certain documents.ĭealing with the claimant’s application for specific disclosure, the judge was critical calling it “ misconceived” as the documents sought did not go to the relevant issues on the pleadings. Following a manual review 95 documents were disclosed to the claimant. Date ranges and key words were applied to the document universe, which was reduced to a more manageable 30,000 or so documents. Prior to the claimant’s application and in accordance with the existing order for disclosure, the defendants undertook an exercise whereby some two million electronic documents (plus some hardcopy documents which were scanned and stored electronically) were collected and transferred to a disclosure platform. In Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd EWHC 3104 (Ch), the High Court refused the claimant’s application to enforce compliance with an existing order for disclosure (pursuant to paragraph 17 of CPR PD51U) and for additional specific disclosure to be given by varying the existing order (pursuant to paragraph 18 of CPR PD51U). Now a recent decision highlights the level of scrutiny the court is prepared to take when deciding whether an order for additional disclosure should be granted under the Disclosure Pilot. This was Vos C’s determination in the leading case dealing with the application of the Disclosure Pilot Scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts (UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd EWHC 914 (Ch)). It operates along different lines driven by reasonableness and proportionality. The Disclosure Pilot Scheme (now in its second year) is not simply a rewrite of CPR Part 31. Johnny’s article has been published in Lawyer Monthly, 12 February 2020, and can be found here. Professional Support Lawyer, Johnny Shearman, examines the recent ruling in Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd EWHC 3104 (Ch) and how this latest decision by the courts highlights the level of scrutiny being applied to Disclosure Pilot Scheme cases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |