Authors
Edward Spencer

Edward Spencer

Senior Counsel

Read More
Lizzie Hancock

Lizzie Hancock

Knowledge Lawyer

Read More
Authors
Edward Spencer

Edward Spencer

Senior Counsel

Read More
Lizzie Hancock

Lizzie Hancock

Knowledge Lawyer

Read More

25 July 2022

Disputes Quick Read – 5 of 63 Insights

Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?

  • Briefing

Redacting information in documents subject to disclosure has always been a slightly contentious issue. Parties – in the midst of a dispute – have to trust that redactions have been applied appropriately based on the counterparty's solicitor's assurance.

Historically, the rules around redacting parts of documents - by way of withholding inspection - did not get much focus. It had a passing reference in CPR 31 and its accompanying practice direction (31APD.6) but there was little specific guidance to its application.

The Disclosure Pilot Scheme (DPS) – which has recently been approved and will come into force as Practice Direction 57AD on 1 October 2022 – includes an express rule (PD51U.16):

"16. Redaction
16.1 A party may redact a part or parts of a document on the ground that the redacted data comprises data that is—
(1) irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings, and confidential; or
(2) privileged.
16.2 Any redaction must be accompanied by an explanation of the basis on which it has been undertaken and confirmation, where a legal representative has conduct of litigation for the redacting party, that the redaction has been reviewed by a legal representative with control of the disclosure process. A party wishing to challenge the redaction of data must apply to the court by application notice supported where necessary by a witness statement."

The DPS does not change the test in relation to what can be redacted but clarifies and codifies the position. 

In summary: a party can redact a document or part thereof if it is irrelevant and confidential or it is privileged

Privileged information can always be redacted, but for irrelevant information it is a two stage test. The first requirement is that the information proposed to be redacted must be “irrelevant” to the issues in the proceedings. Only if it is irrelevant does the second consideration of whether the information is confidential arise. If both apply, the information can be redacted and the information withheld from the other parties. Parties should be prepared to explain the basis on which redactions have been applied and therefore the decision making process should be recorded.

Crucially the test to determine whether information can be redacted turns on its relevance to issues in the proceedings, and not the list of issues for disclosure – which are likely to be narrower.

This point was recently reiterated by Mr Justice Trower's judgment in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and others [2022] EWHC 868 (Ch).

The judgment followed the Claimant's application for further orders in relation to the First Defendant's disclosure of 26 chains of heavily redacted WhatsApp messages. The Claimant submitted that the redactions were unjustified and sought an order that 17 of the chains be disclosed to its solicitors unredacted.

Due to the heavy redactions, and in light of there being limited other sources of documents from the First Defendant, the court followed WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch) and despite the statement from solicitors felt justified in adopting greater vigilance to ensure that the right to redact was not being abused or too liberally interpreted.

When the WhatsApp messages were first disclosed a large proportion had been redacted or partially redacted on the basis that they were irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings, and confidential in line with PD51U.16.1(1). Crucially, the solicitors did not provide an explanation for each redaction but relied on a blanket explanation that the messages were "information about unrelated commercial transactions and other commercial information unrelated to the issues in these proceedings." 

Following correspondence between the parties, the First Defendant's solicitors agreed to un-redact a small tranche of the WhatsApp messages stating that they accepted that it was "at least arguable that they may be relevant to the issues for disclosure". Adding, however, that they considered them unlikely to be of any particular significance to the issues in dispute in the proceedings. 

Given these statements the judge found that the First Defendant's solicitors had adopted an approach to relevance which was too narrow. The solicitors should have assessed the application of redactions against all the issues in the proceedings and not just the Issues for Disclosure as appeared to be the case here. 

The Judge was not convinced to order that the First Defendant disclose all the WhatsApp messages in unredacted form as sought by the Claimant. Instead, he ordered a re-review of the redactions of all the WhatsApp messages disclosed by the First Defendant "having regard both to the need to assess them against all of the issues in the proceedings and not just the Issues for Disclosure".  

The Judge ordered that the solicitors should also provide an accompanying schedule for each redaction detailing: the names of the recipient, the date and time of the message and a generic description of the subject matter of the exchange. Despite that potentially being a time-consuming task, it was reasonable and proportionate given the First Defendant's limited disclosure from his own sources and given the nature and complexity of the case. 

The judgment and subsequent order emphasises the importance of taking a balanced approach to redactions in the first instance by considering relevance in relation to all issues in the proceedings. Further, it is a reminder to adequately record the decision making process for each redaction, rather than rely on a blanket statement for groups of redactions.

In this series

Cryptoassets, blockchain and distributed ledger technology

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

by Nick Maday, Katie Fry-Paul

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

by Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers

26 February 2021

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: The latest on Unexplained Wealth Orders

7 May 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

21 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning

2 July 2020

by Tim Strong, Georgina Jones

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

by Multiple authors

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Close-Up Of Target
Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure Pilot Scheme – here to stay

21 July 2022
Quick read

by Edward Spencer

Click here to find out more
Tunnel with vanishing point and neon lights
Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format

13 June 2022
Briefing

by Edward Spencer and Lizzie Hancock

Click here to find out more
Two coloured ropes knotted together
Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup

20 January 2022
Briefing

by Edward Spencer and Natalia Faekova

Click here to find out more