header-logo header-logo

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

Disclosure reforms ready to go

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll