header-logo header-logo

18 July 2025 / Nicola McKinney
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Features , Disclosure , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Material or misleading?

225847
Nicola McKinney on why full & frank disclosure in ex parte applications is central to maintaining judicial integrity
  • The duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications is central to maintaining judicial integrity. Material facts are those that could influence the judge’s decision. Determining what is material can be complex, especially in high-stakes commercial litigation.
  • Two recent cases illustrate the fine line in assessing materiality. In Reid, a date error was deemed immaterial due to its obvious nature and lack of impact. In contrast, Ivanishvili involved a concealed limitation defence that misled the court, leading to a finding of material non-disclosure.
  • Courts emphasise proportionality—neither omitting key facts nor overwhelming the court with irrelevant details. Both applicants and respondents must exercise judgement and restraint to avoid misleading the court or diluting strong arguments.

Several recent English cases have considered an applicant’s duty to disclose material facts and to make a full and fair presentation in the context of ex parte hearings. A determinative issue in two cases with

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll