*/
In January 2019, a two-year experiment began which affects the procedures for disclosure which have to be followed in most Business and Property Courts cases (ie in the Chancery Division, the Patents Court, the Technology and Construction Court, the Commercial Court and Circuit Commercial Courts, see r.57A.1; but not the Admiralty Court, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, cases assigned to the Shorter and Flexible Trial Schemes and other cases excepted from the pilot; see further, PD 51U para 1.4). I believe that this experiment will be a success and therefore, by the end of the year 2021, the pilot will become the standard procedure for most cases in all civil courts. What follows is an overview of the new system, concentrating on the changes from the old. There are also many ways in which the pilot duplicates or expressly applies the current system (Pt 31); for example, redaction, inadvertent disclosure and pre-action and non-party disclosure.
The pilot codifies the duties placed upon litigants and their lawyers (PD51U para 3, ‘Duties in relation to disclosure’) and confirms that these are continuing duties. The sanctions for failing to discharge them range from an adverse order for costs to committal for contempt of court (PD51U para 4). Three of the duties included in the list are obvious: obey orders, be honest, and conduct searches for documents in a responsible and conscientious manner. The other three are more exciting.
The pilot requires parties to serve with their statements of claim an Initial Disclosure List of Documents (PD51U para 5). This list is limited to the key documents upon which the party has relied (expressly or impliedly) in support of its statement of case and the key documents that are necessary to enable opposing parties to understand the case they have to meet. A party making initial disclosure must also serve (but not file at court) copies of these key documents in electronic form. Initial disclosure is not required if the parties so agree, or if the court so orders, or if the volume of documents is large (over 1,000 pages, or over 200 documents).
Before the first case management conference (CMC), the parties must make known to each other whether they intend to request ‘Extended disclosure’ (PD51U paras 6–9). Extended disclosure may take the form of one or more of five disclosure models. These are different levels of disclosure.
The court will make an order for extended disclosure only if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in order to fairly resolve one or more of the issues for disclosure (PD51U para 6.3). To help the court to make this determination the parties must prepare, in advance of the first CMC in which extended disclosure is sought, a list of issues for disclosure and a disclosure review document (PD51U paras 7 and 10). For cases governed by the pilot, these documents replace the current disclosure report in form N263 and the electronic documents questionnaire. If the claimant is acting in person and a defendant is not, the court may request that defendant’s legal representatives to lead on the preparation and filing of the list of issues for disclosure and a disclosure review document (PD51U paras 7.9 and 10.10).
When deciding what, if any, extended disclosure to order, the court will have regard to estimates which the parties must provide as to the likely costs of giving the disclosure they propose and as to the likely number of such documents. If the cost budgeting scheme applies and both sides agree that it is impractical to complete the disclosure section of their budgets prior to the court’s decision on extended disclosure, they may notify the court that they have agreed to postpone this part of budgeting until after the first CMC. The court will later set a deferred deadline for this part of their costs budgeting (see generally, PD51U para 22).
In January 2019, a two-year experiment began which affects the procedures for disclosure which have to be followed in most Business and Property Courts cases (ie in the Chancery Division, the Patents Court, the Technology and Construction Court, the Commercial Court and Circuit Commercial Courts, see r.57A.1; but not the Admiralty Court, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, cases assigned to the Shorter and Flexible Trial Schemes and other cases excepted from the pilot; see further, PD 51U para 1.4). I believe that this experiment will be a success and therefore, by the end of the year 2021, the pilot will become the standard procedure for most cases in all civil courts. What follows is an overview of the new system, concentrating on the changes from the old. There are also many ways in which the pilot duplicates or expressly applies the current system (Pt 31); for example, redaction, inadvertent disclosure and pre-action and non-party disclosure.
The pilot codifies the duties placed upon litigants and their lawyers (PD51U para 3, ‘Duties in relation to disclosure’) and confirms that these are continuing duties. The sanctions for failing to discharge them range from an adverse order for costs to committal for contempt of court (PD51U para 4). Three of the duties included in the list are obvious: obey orders, be honest, and conduct searches for documents in a responsible and conscientious manner. The other three are more exciting.
The pilot requires parties to serve with their statements of claim an Initial Disclosure List of Documents (PD51U para 5). This list is limited to the key documents upon which the party has relied (expressly or impliedly) in support of its statement of case and the key documents that are necessary to enable opposing parties to understand the case they have to meet. A party making initial disclosure must also serve (but not file at court) copies of these key documents in electronic form. Initial disclosure is not required if the parties so agree, or if the court so orders, or if the volume of documents is large (over 1,000 pages, or over 200 documents).
Before the first case management conference (CMC), the parties must make known to each other whether they intend to request ‘Extended disclosure’ (PD51U paras 6–9). Extended disclosure may take the form of one or more of five disclosure models. These are different levels of disclosure.
The court will make an order for extended disclosure only if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in order to fairly resolve one or more of the issues for disclosure (PD51U para 6.3). To help the court to make this determination the parties must prepare, in advance of the first CMC in which extended disclosure is sought, a list of issues for disclosure and a disclosure review document (PD51U paras 7 and 10). For cases governed by the pilot, these documents replace the current disclosure report in form N263 and the electronic documents questionnaire. If the claimant is acting in person and a defendant is not, the court may request that defendant’s legal representatives to lead on the preparation and filing of the list of issues for disclosure and a disclosure review document (PD51U paras 7.9 and 10.10).
When deciding what, if any, extended disclosure to order, the court will have regard to estimates which the parties must provide as to the likely costs of giving the disclosure they propose and as to the likely number of such documents. If the cost budgeting scheme applies and both sides agree that it is impractical to complete the disclosure section of their budgets prior to the court’s decision on extended disclosure, they may notify the court that they have agreed to postpone this part of budgeting until after the first CMC. The court will later set a deferred deadline for this part of their costs budgeting (see generally, PD51U para 22).
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Mental health charity Mind BWW has received a £500 donation from drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs as part of its Giving Back campaign
The Institute of Neurotechnology & Law is thrilled to announce its inaugural essay competition
How to navigate open source evidence in an era of deepfakes. By Professor Yvonne McDermott Rees and Professor Alexa Koenig
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Lyndsey de Mestre KC take a look at the difficulties women encounter during the menopause, and offer some practical tips for individuals and chambers to make things easier
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, says Antony Hodari Solicitors. We are tackling the problem of bad housing with a two-pronged approach and act on behalf of tenants in both the civil and criminal courts