Changes afoot as litigators lambast disclosure pilot

Flaux: Changes going to rule committee later in the autumn

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 of this and other feedback.

As predicted in May, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has now been asked to extend the pilot to the end of 2021.

The latest interim report on the pilot by Professor Rachael Mulheron was based on responses to a questionnaire circulated in October last year, nine months after its launch.

Although the report was completed by February this year and discussed by the disclosure working group in June, it has only now been published.

Large majorities told Professor Mulheron the pilot had increased the costs and time spent on disclosure (88%), failed to achieve a culture change (78%) and increased the burden on the courts (71%).

Professor Mulheron admitted that the responses were “frequently quite negative, and sometimes, emphatically, even vociferously, so”.

One solicitor said there had been a culture change – but rather than leading to a greater degree of “co-operation, proportionality and reasonableness” as intended, it meant “parties have more opportunity to argue with each other”.

Another said the new process had been marked by “a high degree of distrust between solicitors, unnecessary position-taking and unending vituperative correspondence… the scheme should be withdrawn without delay”.

A further response stated that “a system that was working fine for the majority of High Court cases has been ruined by the pilot, which appears to have been introduced to accommodate high-value insurance and banking litigation, without any thought for the majority of cases it will impact for which it has no benefit whatsoever”.

Another angry litigator described the pilot as “a further barrier to justice”, which would deter those with claims of around £250,000 from issuing proceedings because of the front-loading of costs.

Only 4% of litigators thought the disclosure pilot had reduced costs, 6% that it had improved the culture and 2% that it had reduced the burden on the courts.

Professor Mulheron, based at Queen Mary University, said in her preface to the report that the nature of the responses could be explained by the timing of the questionnaire, early in the life of the pilot, when its impact on overall costs was “too early to tell”.

There were 71 responses to the questionnaire, 44 from law firms and the rest from individuals.

A large majority (88%) thought the disclosure review document (DRD) introduced by the pilot had increased costs and time, with only 6% saying it had saved them.

Although there was usually agreement by the parties on the need for extended disclosure (84%), a majority (78%) said the parties disagreed on which disclosure model to use.

Two-thirds of lawyers said they had encountered difficulties in the duties placed on them by the pilot to preserve documents.

In a positive response, a majority of litigators (59%) said they believed the threshold set for evaluating at what point the initial disclosure obligation ended, as the larger of 1,000 pages or 200 documents, was appropriate.

Lord Justice Flaux, chair of the disclosure working group, said the rule committee has recently been asked to approve a one-year extension of the pilot to the end of 2021.

The group has also prepared a revised version of PD 51U for consideration by the committee later this autumn as a result of the feedback it has received. The changes include:

  • Clarifying when the default obligation to disclose known adverse documents arises;
  • Modifying the requirements of and exemptions to initial disclosure;
  • Clarifying issues relating to the use of disclosure guidance hearings;
  • Confining the obligation to complete the DRD to only those cases where the parties agree that search-based extended disclosure models are required (i.e. models C, D and/or E); and
  • Removing the obligation to produce a list of issues for disclosure and the DRD if both parties have agreed that extended disclosure is to be restricted to non-search-based models A and/or B.

The rule committee will hear proposals to simplify the DRD as well, including further guidance on when and how it should be completed, and confirmation that it may be modified and/or shortened by the parties for more or less complex cases.

Earlier this month, Professor Mulheron urged courts to “get a handle” on why most solicitors believed the disclosure pilot was not producing cost savings.

    Readers Comments

  • G Perring says:

    I am a Litigant in Person, and I know from Experience that many Involved in the Practice of the Law, actually resent the fact that they are being put under more of a Legal obligation to Disclose.

    In my humble opinion, Court time is being saved. That is a Good outcome.

    The ability to withhold Important Documents is being vastly Reduced. A good outcome.

    When a LiP has tried to obtain a Fair Trial on the Issues, & finds that a Solicitor, (the Defendant) knew of Documents that show he made & received (2) Separate Applications, but destroyed the (1st) Set of Reports, and concealed that fact.

    So that only after I had to accept negligence, I discovered those facts & all the Solicitors on both sides did not report the Facts to the SRA/Court. I think it is of great importance that all Legal Representative involved, know the Consequences that Failure to Disclose (Vital Documents) will carry serious Consequences.

    I’m not talking about genuine mistakes. We all make those.

    Looking at it logically, if I were Qualified Legally, I would, if I was that type, want to earn as much as possible. Which the old system not only allowed, but actively encouraged.

    Now with the DP in place until 2021, and Legals have to tell their Clients of the Rules, people are going to be less likely to chance failing to disclose etc..

    Or Legals turning a Blind eye to known Adverse Document or Witness, which is what has happened frequently and both sides did it.

    I see it as a success if the Pilot becomes accepted (& develops) in Law.

    It’s indicative of how many Cases get settled at the “door” prior to going into Court after lengthy, costly and often the health & financial damage caused to innocent victims. Years stolen from your life. My case began in (2016). The deed was done in (2006).

    I am not biased, I know many cases now will never lead to losses because of Withholding of evidence. On either side.

    The Solicitors & Barristers will have to look to other areas of practising the Law.

    I have (2020) begun proceedings again. As deliberate Failure to disclose caused them to get off easy. I am (72) now & never expected to end up spending my days & nights looking into the Law.

    The Legal Profession needs Quality not Quantity, and no doubt as it appears, is already happening, Firms will become smaller, because they can’t spend years “pulling the wool”.

    In a Nutshell, this Pilot Scheme hopefully will become tougher and only real disputes go forward.

    I hope my “experience” gives you the true Birds Eye view over the Disclosure Pilot & it’s true value.

    Both to Legals & Clients who are conducting themselves honestly.

    Shakespeare even all those years ago knew of the problem!

    Kind regards
    G Perring

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


30 March 2021

Judicial review reform: A risk to the courts’ post-Brexit standing

In addition to questions about the motivations for curbing legal challenges to political decisions, the proposed reforms to judicial review raise concerns about undermining the reputation of the English courts

Read More