header-logo header-logo

28 June 2018
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Disclosure reforms ready to go

Draft rules fine-tuned after months of feedback

Parties to commercial litigation must disclose all ‘smoking guns’ under draft disclosure rules due to be piloted in the Business and Property Courts in January.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee approved the draft rules this month and is likely to finalise its approval when it meets again in July. The draft rules, first published in November by a disclosure working group of judges and senior litigators, have been fine-tuned to take account of feedback from a three-month, 26-event roadshow.

A menu of five options on disclosure (A-E) would replace the current regime, with parties required to disclose all ‘known adverse documents’ (or ‘smoking guns’) as a minimum. The options then range through: ‘only those documents they are relying on plus known adverse documents’; ‘request-led’ disclosure for particular documents; ‘search-based’ disclosure for documents relating to issues; to ‘documents that may lead to a train of enquiry’—the broadest possible form of disclosure, often used in complex fraud cases where detective work is involved.

The draft rules introduce a clear duty on both parties and their advisers to engage with each other over what will be disclosed—currently, there is no obligation to do this. Judges would be expected to manage cases more closely and may give directions to reduce the burden and cost of disclosure.

Ed Crosse, disclosure working group member, partner at Simmons & Simmons and former London Solicitors Litigators Association (LSLA) president, said: ‘This provides a framework for bringing about a change in litigation culture both by parties and judges.

‘The rules can only achieve so much, and the profession will need to embrace this to bring about change. The alternative is that our processes will become less attractive for international parties, who will vote with their feet. Our courts need to stay competitive, particularly in light of the uncertainties of Brexit.’

The working group was set up in response to concerns over unmanageable volumes of evidence. A 2017 survey by NLJ and the LSLA found that the current menu of disclosure is rarely used, while 70% said the burden and costs of disclosure were not being effectively controlled.

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