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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll