header-logo header-logo

02 March 2007 / Charles Brasted
Issue: 7262 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Disclosure matters: Tweed

Does Tweed signal a revolution in the approach
to disclosure in judicial review proceedings?
Charles Brasted investigates

The recent judgment of the House of Lords in Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53, [2006] All ER (D) 175 (Dec) again raises the question of when the disclosure of documents can be obtained in judicial review proceedings (see NLJ, 16 February 2007, p 257). While no definitive answer is to be found, this case does provide important guidance and arguably marks a further step away from the historically restrictive approach adopted by the courts in such proceedings, reinforcing the apparent—albeit nascent—trend towards the more frequent use of formalised dis-closure and inspection requirements in judicial review proceedings.

The restrictive approach

In contrast to the routine disclosure of documents in ordinary civil litigation, no such presumption applies to claims for judicial review. In short, the position under the Civil Procedure Rules is as follows:

  • there is no requirement for a formal disclosure and inspection process unless the court orders otherwise;
  • all parties are under a general ‘duty of candour’, requiring them to disclose all information
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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll