header-logo header-logo

03 February 2021
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-detail

Limits to personal disclosure

Disclosure requirements can extend to work-related emails and messages on an employee’s personal phone or other device, the Court of Appeal has held.

The case, Phones4U v EE & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 116, concerned questions about the jurisdiction and discretion of the court regarding CPR Part 31 disclosure, where senior officers, employees and ex-employees may have used personal electronic devices for work-related emails and messages.

It arose in the course of a competition claim brought by Phones4U (now in administration) against other mobile network operators. The High Court ordered seven of the defendants to write to individual employees and ex-employees asking them to allow consultants hired by another defendant to search their personal devices and emails for material relevant to the case. The consultants were not to disclose any non-relevant material to the defendants, and should return the devices and emails to the individuals and delete any copies. The individuals could refuse the request.

However, the defendants questioned whether the judge had jurisdiction to order a party to request third-party custodians voluntarily to produce personal devices and emails. They asked whether the judge was justified in including a rider in his judgment but not in his order that the defendants ought not to tell the individuals that they could refuse the request.

They challenged whether the use of the consultants was appropriate and proportionate. Finally, Vodafone raised an additional argument about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said there was ‘no jurisdictional impediment’ to the judge’s order and it was appropriate and proportionate. He dismissed the GDPR argument but agreed the judge should not have suggested in a rider what was not in his judgment.

Sir Geoffrey said: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the present case concerns an alleged unlawful agreement, which by its nature is likely to be covert. It is obvious, as the judge pointed out, that, where companies do engage in unlawful, collusive behaviour, the individuals involved may sometimes deliberately avoid using their work email or work devices so as to conceal their dealings.’

Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll