The unholy use & abuse of Pt 18 must come to an end, says Mary Blyth
National Grid Electricity v ABB & Ors [2012] EWHC 869 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 92 (Apr) for most appears to be a competition case with a definitive judgment about disclosure, immunity and relevance of documents. For me, the elephant in the room is the guidance provided on CPR Pt 18.
Since 1998, there have been no less than 58 updates to the CPR but Pt 18 has been left relatively unchanged. More often than not any dispute regarding Pt 18 quickly reverts to a dispute about disclosure and CPR 31 where the journey ends.
Irrelevant & disproportionate
How often have you received a Pt 18 request demanding evidence that is both irrelevant to the issues of the case and disproportionate? Frequently, I hasten to suggest.
At long last we now have a Chancery High Court decision that has the unintended consequence of providing guidelines on how Pt 18 should be used and interpreted.
For many years
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
