header-logo header-logo

26 April 2013 / Georgina Squire
Issue: 7557 / Categories: Features , E-disclosure , Profession
printer mail-detail

A brighter future?

Georgina Squire is optimistic about the process of disclosure post-Jackson

As of 1 April 2013, standard disclosure is no longer the default provision in most multi-track cases. With disclosure often being the most expensive and time consuming part of the litigation process, this should be welcome news to litigants and solicitors alike. The recent decision in West African Gas Pipeline Company Limited v Willbros Global Holdings Inc. [2012] EWHC 396 (TCC) highlighted the significant issues encountered in the disclosure process, especially in high value claims involving e-disclosure. The new rules aim to tackle these problems by introducing stricter case management in the disclosure process.

No longer one size fits all

It is clear from the new rules that disclosure can no longer be said to be a “one size fits all” exercise. CPR 31.5(7) provides a menu of options for disclosure. The underlying objective of any order made by the court is the need to limit disclosure to that which is necessary to deal with the case justly. Gone are the days

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll