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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll