header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 January 2012
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Disclosure & inspection of documents

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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. 

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll