header-logo header-logo

Limits to personal disclosure

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

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll