Disclosure


Judge: Disclosure pilot demands co-operation, not unilateral action

Parties in disagreement over how to proceed with disclosure under the pilot should not stop talking or engage in “point-scoring correspondence”, a judge has warned.

Read More

Commercial Court judge: costs are “always a worry”

A Commercial Court judge has said that the question of costs “worries me always” and should worry judges in all jurisdictions, particularly where there is a disparity of economic power between the parties.

Read More

Changes afoot as litigators lambast disclosure pilot

Commercial litigators have vented their frustration – and in some cases anger – with the disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts, and changes to its rules have been put forward as a result.

Read More

Courts must “get a handle” on disclosure pilot costs

The Business and Property Courts must “get a handle” on why most solicitors believe the disclosure pilot is not producing cost savings, the professor monitoring its progress has said.

Read More

Disclosure pilot “to be extended for another year”

The disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts is likely to be extended until the end of 2021, with a key figure saying it would be “premature” to end the pilot as planned this year.

Read More

Weinstein director “must comply” with disclosure order

A former member of the board of the Weinstein Company does have to comply with a disclosure order in a sexual harassment case despite not living in the UK, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.

Read More

Client “must not select documents” for disclosure

It is “fundamental” to the disclosure duties of solicitors that clients are not allowed to select relevant documents, the High Court has stressed.

Read More

Company must disclose documents held by subsidiaries

A company must disclose documents held by its subsidiaries and which it controls, the High Court has ruled, in a case handled under the disclosure pilot.

Read More

← Older posts Page 1 of 3

Blog

23 November 2020

Technicalities and realities – the battle over clin neg ATE premiums

A paying party in a clinical negligence case is seeking to argue that a Tomlin order is not a relevant “order for costs” and therefore the ATE premium is not payable. This should be given short shrift.

Read More