header-logo header-logo

07 December 2012 / Garry Bernstein
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Held to account

New CPR 31.5A looks set to shake up the disclosure process in England & Wales, reports Garry Bernstein

The principle that the costs of conducting litigation should be proportionate and satisfy the overriding objective is long-established in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). However, accurately forecasting and managing eDisclosure costs have often been difficult to achieve in practice. This reality is in part due to the burgeoning volumes of email and other electronic documents that form a typical eDisclosure exercise. Another factor is the lack of precise metrics or case law as to what “proportionate” actually means in practice and it is this point that the judiciary has addressed in CPR 31.5A.

Significant change

From April 2013, a new CPR 31.5A will operate in conjunction with Practice Direction 31B (the disclosure of electronic documents) and will apply to all multi-track proceedings, except those relating to personal injuries and clinical negligence. In many respects, CPR 31.5A codifies existing best practice in relation to eDisclosure,

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll