header-logo header-logo

Limits to personal disclosure

03 February 2021
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-detail
Disclosure requirements can extend to work-related emails and messages on an employee’s personal phone or other device, the Court of Appeal has held.

The case, Phones4U v EE & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 116, concerned questions about the jurisdiction and discretion of the court regarding CPR Part 31 disclosure, where senior officers, employees and ex-employees may have used personal electronic devices for work-related emails and messages.

It arose in the course of a competition claim brought by Phones4U (now in administration) against other mobile network operators. The High Court ordered seven of the defendants to write to individual employees and ex-employees asking them to allow consultants hired by another defendant to search their personal devices and emails for material relevant to the case. The consultants were not to disclose any non-relevant material to the defendants, and should return the devices and emails to the individuals and delete any copies. The individuals could refuse the request.

However, the defendants questioned whether the judge had jurisdiction to order a party to request third-party custodians voluntarily to produce personal devices and emails. They asked whether the judge was justified in including a rider in his judgment but not in his order that the defendants ought not to tell the individuals that they could refuse the request.

They challenged whether the use of the consultants was appropriate and proportionate. Finally, Vodafone raised an additional argument about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said there was ‘no jurisdictional impediment’ to the judge’s order and it was appropriate and proportionate. He dismissed the GDPR argument but agreed the judge should not have suggested in a rider what was not in his judgment.

Sir Geoffrey said: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the present case concerns an alleged unlawful agreement, which by its nature is likely to be covert. It is obvious, as the judge pointed out, that, where companies do engage in unlawful, collusive behaviour, the individuals involved may sometimes deliberately avoid using their work email or work devices so as to conceal their dealings.’

Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

National Pro Bono Centre—Esther McConnell & Sarah Oliver Scemla

National Pro Bono Centre—Esther McConnell & Sarah Oliver Scemla

Charity strengthens leadership as national Pro Bono Week takes place

Michelman Robinson—Akshay Sewlikar

Michelman Robinson—Akshay Sewlikar

Dual-qualified partner joins London disputes practice

McDermott Will & Schulte—Karen Butler

McDermott Will & Schulte—Karen Butler

Transactions practice welcomes partner in London office

NEWS
Intellectual property lawyers have expressed disappointment a ground-breaking claim on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) ended with no precedent being set
Two separate post-implementation reviews are being held into the extension of fixed recoverable costs for personal injury claims and the whiplash regime
Legal executives can apply for standalone litigation practice rights, the Legal Services Board (LSB) has confirmed, in a move likely to offset some of the confusion caused by Mazur
Delays in the family court in London and the south east are partly due to a 20% shortage of judges, Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, has told MPs
Entries are now open for the 2026 LexisNexis Legal Awards, celebrating achievement and innovation in the law across 24 categories
back-to-top-scroll