header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Costa Kypre
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , E-disclosure , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

A new direction

Costa Kypre introduces the new kid on the e-disclosure block: Practice Direction 31B

There have been a number of cases recently which have highlighted the potential pitfalls if electronic disclosure is not approached in a systematic and collaborative fashion. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that tackle the disclosure of electronic documents have been amended, to try and ensure parties involved in a disclosure exercise consider all angles and confer with any other parties from an early stage in the process, to avoid any unnecessary disputes later down the line which can be costly to resolve.

The CPR have been amended by means of a revised practice direction on electronic disclosure. The amended section is Pt 31B which came into force last Friday (1 October 2010).

One of the key features of the amended CPR is the incorporation of an electronic disclosure questionnaire, which encourages parties to provide information about documents they hold in electronic form which are to be disclosed and details of their electronic storage systems.

The new practice direction deals

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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