13. Juni 2022
Disputes Quick Read – 44 von 95 Insights
In Veasey v Macdougall and others [2022] EWHC 864 (Ch) the court partly granted applications seeking disclosure of additional documents (under PD 51U.17 and PD 51U.18) by the petitioner and two respondents in the context of an unfair prejudice petition.
The judgment reiterates the obligation, unless otherwise ordered or agreed, for electronic documents to be disclosed in native format (PD 51U.13).
In this case, the petitioner was required to make a witness statement to explain what had happened, including the extent to which he had been advised by solicitors of his obligations.
"13. Production of documents
13.1 Save where otherwise agreed or ordered, a party shall produce -
(1) disclosable electronic documents to the other parties by providing electronic copies in the documents’ native format, in a manner which preserves metadata;
...
13.2 Electronic documents should generally be provided in the form which allows the party receiving the documents the same ability to access, search, review and display the documents (including metadata) as the party providing them."
The petitioner's disclosure included text messages. The text messages which were considered relevant were copied into a new standalone document and uploaded to the e-disclosure document review platform.
That step, of creating a new document, breached PD 51U.13.1(1) and 13.2 as the text messages were not provided in native form and the metadata was not preserved. The petitioner's reasoning was that this method of creating a new document avoided "having to redact over 1,000 pages of personal and irrelevant material which is disproportionate in the circumstances.". They added "the document uploaded to the platform containing the relevant texts does not have the original meta-data in relation to the messages but this can be provided under separate cover should you require it.''
However, the decision to balance costs and the obligation to provide documents in the format set out in the CPR did not convince the judge. While the effort to reduce costs and the offer to provide metadata separately was noted, the judge (HHJ Matthews) stated that the fact remained that the petitioner did not comply with the rules. He said:
"Electronic disclosure is not simply a recent “add-on” to the original disclosure regime. On the contrary, in the modern business world, and under CPR Practice Direction 51U, it is most of it. Producing copies of electronic documents, or simply just printed out versions of them, gives less information (and sometimes different information) compared to the original native versions. Mistakes do occur in copying. It is not unknown for electronic documents, like paper documents, to be tampered with (though there is no suggestion of that here). It is therefore important that the rules specially formulated for electronic disclosure, in particular about disclosing electronic documents in native format, are adhered to."
This highlights the importance of complying with the rules even in cases involving slightly more unusual, or seemingly less straightforward to produce, electronic documents such as text messages or electronic messages other than email.
Parties to litigation cannot ignore the rules simply for the ease of production or to save costs.
A robust and defensible collection process, with data of all types being extracted and processed in a forensically sound way, isn’t a corner to be cut. Before taking any step which is not in full compliance with the rules, you should seek to reach agreement with the other side as to an appropriate approach.
When the respondent requested native versions of two text messages whose timing was considered relevant, the petitioner's solicitors indicated that they were unable to locate native copies. They indicated in fact they had never had the documents in native format and only had possession of screenshots of the text messages.
The judge reminded the petitioner's solicitors of the importance of the following duties:
The judge decided that there had clearly been a failure to comply with the disclosure order. Given the difficulties and confusion caused, it was "entirely reasonable and proportionate" that the petitioner should make a witness statement supported by a statement of truth, regarding what had happened. The statement should either evidence that he had complied, or that it was impossible for him fully to comply, taking into account his own actions and the extent to which he was advised by solicitors of his obligations.
30. October 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. October 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. July 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. July 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. March 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. February 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. February 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. December 2023
13. December 2023
23. October 2023
von mehreren Autoren
17. October 2023
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. July 2023
10. July 2023
1. June 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. May 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
8. March 2023
2. March 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. February 2023
13. February 2023
8. February 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. January 2023
3. October 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
6. July 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. July 2022
21. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
27. July 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. July 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. June 2022
von Stephanie High
13. June 2022
von Edward Spencer
26. May 2022
31. May 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. March 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von mehreren Autoren
13. September 2021
von Edward Spencer
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. July 2021
15. July 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. May 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. May 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. March 2021
26. February 2021
von Tim Strong
24. February 2021
20. January 2021
von Stephanie High
12. January 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. October 2020
23. September 2020
von mehreren Autoren
7. October 2020
von Nick Storrs
26. May 2020
von Edward Spencer
12. May 2020
18. May 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. March 2020
von James Bryden
17. March 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. March 2020
von mehreren Autoren
26. February 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. February 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. July 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. July 2020
21. July 2020
3. December 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. October 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. January 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. January 2022
8. March 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. March 2022
7. April 2022
von mehreren Autoren
von Edward Spencer
von Edward Spencer
von Edward Spencer und Natalia Faekova