Serious Organised Crime Agency v Namli and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1411, [2012] All ER (D) 56 (Jan)
CPR 31.6(b)(ii) was unqualified.
Whereas para (a) expressly used the formula “on which [the disclosing party] relies”, no such words appeared in either CPR 31.6(b)(i) or (ii). It was not possible to read into CPR 31.6(b)(ii) the words “as against another party”, so as to limit the obligation to documents which adversely affected another party’s case as against some other party.
To do so was simply to add words that were not there. Moreover, the power conferred on the court by CPR 31.5 to limit disclosure rendered any contrived, forced or purposive interpretation of CPR 31.6 unnecessary. The power conferred by CPR 31.5(2) was not confined to the same occasion as that on which an order for disclosure was made under CPR 31.5(1). The wording suggested that separate orders were envisaged, that under para (1) being a direction and that under para (2) being an order dispensing with or limiting standard disclosure.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=274ce499_1)
