header-logo header-logo

Disclosure reforms ready to go

28 June 2018
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Draft rules fine-tuned after months of feedback

Parties to commercial litigation must disclose all ‘smoking guns’ under draft disclosure rules due to be piloted in the Business and Property Courts in January.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee approved the draft rules this month and is likely to finalise its approval when it meets again in July. The draft rules, first published in November by a disclosure working group of judges and senior litigators, have been fine-tuned to take account of feedback from a three-month, 26-event roadshow.

A menu of five options on disclosure (A-E) would replace the current regime, with parties required to disclose all ‘known adverse documents’ (or ‘smoking guns’) as a minimum. The options then range through: ‘only those documents they are relying on plus known adverse documents’; ‘request-led’ disclosure for particular documents; ‘search-based’ disclosure for documents relating to issues; to ‘documents that may lead to a train of enquiry’—the broadest possible form of disclosure, often used in complex fraud cases where detective work is involved.

The draft rules introduce a clear duty on both parties and their advisers to engage with each other over what will be disclosed—currently, there is no obligation to do this. Judges would be expected to manage cases more closely and may give directions to reduce the burden and cost of disclosure.

Ed Crosse, disclosure working group member, partner at Simmons & Simmons and former London Solicitors Litigators Association (LSLA) president, said: ‘This provides a framework for bringing about a change in litigation culture both by parties and judges.

‘The rules can only achieve so much, and the profession will need to embrace this to bring about change. The alternative is that our processes will become less attractive for international parties, who will vote with their feet. Our courts need to stay competitive, particularly in light of the uncertainties of Brexit.’

The working group was set up in response to concerns over unmanageable volumes of evidence. A 2017 survey by NLJ and the LSLA found that the current menu of disclosure is rarely used, while 70% said the burden and costs of disclosure were not being effectively controlled.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll