UK: Pilot Of New Disclosure Rules: A Change For The Better?

Last Updated: 12 September 2018
Article by Julian Copeman and Maura McIntosh

A Disclosure Working Group (the working group), chaired by Lady Justice Gloster, was set up in 2016 to consider the rules governing disclosure of documents in English litigation. This was prompted by court users' continuing concerns over the excessive burden and cost of disclosure, and the perception that previous attempts at reform had not produced real improvements.

The working group's proposals, which included drafts of a new practice direction (PD) and disclosure review document (DRD), were published in November 2017 and were subject to consultation until the end of February 2018 (see Opinion "Proposals for disclosure reform: do they fi t the bill?",

On 31 July 2018, the working group announced the launch of a two-year pilot in the Business and Property Courts, based on what it describes as a substantially revised and improved version of the PD and DRD, which have been submitted to and approved by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Professor Rachael Mulheron, of Queen Mary University of London, will monitor the pilot, which will start on 1 January 2019. If deemed a success, it is expected that the existing disclosure rules in Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) will be revised to refl ect the terms of the PD.

The new disclosure process

The pilot PD sets out a new two-stage process for disclosure:

Initial disclosure. This stage was referred to as "basic disclosure" in the draft PD. It requires parties, when serving their particulars of claim or defence, to provide the key documents relied on in support of the claims or defences advanced and the key documents necessary for other parties to understand the claim or defence they have to meet. Documents already provided to the opponent, or known to be in its possession, are excluded.

This obligation may be dispensed with by agreement or court order. In addition, it will not apply where a party concludes and states in writing, approaching the matter in good faith, that it would involve either party providing more than about 1,000 pages or 200 documents, whichever is larger. This threshold has increased from 500 pages in the draft PD, but it still seems likely to be exceeded in most major commercial cases.

Extended disclosure. Parties can request extended disclosure in addition, or as an alternative, to initial disclosure. Extended disclosure will be based on one or more of fi ve different disclosure models that will be selected in relation to the issues for disclosure that the parties will need to identify for this purpose. No application notice is required, but the parties will be expected to have completed the DRD setting out the list of issues for disclosure, their proposals as to which disclosure model(s) should apply, and information as to how documents are stored and how they might be searched and reviewed. The disclosure models are:

  • Model A: disclosure confi ned to known adverse documents. This was referred to as "no order for disclosure" in the November draft. The amendment is presumably to clarify that known adverse documents must always be disclosed (see "Known adverse documents" below).
  • Model B: limited disclosure. This is essentially initial disclosure plus the disclosure of known adverse documents. There is no obligation to carry out a search for documents but, if a search is conducted and uncovers adverse documents, they will need to be disclosed.
  • Model C: request-led search-based disclosure. This is an order to disclose particular documents or narrow classes of documents by reference to requests from the opposing party, similar to the approach often adopted in international arbitration (see box "Moving closer to arbitration?").
  • Model D: narrow search-based disclosure, with or without narrative documents. This is an order to disclose documents that are likely to support or adversely affect any party's case in relation to one or more of the issues for disclosure. It requires parties to undertake a reasonable and proportionate search. Narrative documents, defined as those that are relevant only to the background or context and not directly to the issues for disclosure, should not be disclosed unless specifi ed in the order.
  • Model E: wide search-based disclosure. This is an order to disclose the documents that a party would have to disclose under model D, and documents that may lead to a train of inquiry that may result in the identifi cation of other documents for disclosure under that model. This model is only to be ordered in an exceptional case. It is essentially the form of disclosure that existed under the old pre-CPR rules of court although, even under this model, the requirement is only to undertake a reasonable and proportionate search.

Issues for disclosure

The PD envisages that extended disclosure will proceed by reference to a list of issues for disclosure. The claimant is responsible for preparing the draft list and, according to the PD, should seek to ensure that it provides a fair and balanced summary of the key areas of dispute for which extended disclosure is likely to be sought. The parties must discuss and seek to agree the draft.

The issues for disclosure are expressly limited to the key issues that the parties consider need to be determined with some reference to contemporaneous documents, rather than every issue that is denied or not admitted in the parties' statements of case. However, in any major commercial case, there are likely to be large numbers of issues that fall into this category, some of which may be very complex, and there may be signifi cant differences between the parties as to how the issues should be presented. The preparation of the list of issues for disclosure therefore represents a frontloading of cost, although it may ultimately be outweighed by other savings resulting from the greater focus that the new approach is intended to instil.

The PD expressly states that the court may order a different disclosure model to apply to different issues for disclosure in the case. New wording added since the draft PD states that, in the interests of avoiding undue complexity, the court will rarely require different models for the same set of documents. This is puzzling. It seems to presuppose an ability to determine, in advance of a search, which sets of documents will, or may, be relevant to which issues for disclosure, and that sets of documents can be parcelled out between the issues without overlap. In many cases this will not be the reality.

How much of a change?

The new disclosure models are not wildly different from the current menu of disclosure options set out in CPR 31.5. However, the express aim of the reforms is to reduce the extent of disclosure and therefore the cost. The PD steers the parties, and the court, away from the unthinking adoption of broad disclosure models and toward a more tailored solution, not least by abandoning terminology that might suggest a standard or default option. While model D (narrow search-based disclosure) is the equivalent of standard disclosure under the current menu of disclosure options, it is neither referred to as, nor intended to be, the standard approach.

However, as many have recognised, including the working group itself, the changes to the rules are only part of the picture. If the pilot is to bring in real benefi ts, it can only be by way of a wholesale cultural change among court users. The PD notes the court's expectation that the parties and their representatives will co-operate to assist in determining the scope of disclosure as effi ciently as possible, and that the court will be concerned to ensure that disclosure is not wider than is reasonable and proportionate in order fairly to resolve the issues for disclosure. The working group's press announcement further emphasises that the court should be proactive in directing an appropriate disclosure model, and should not accept the parties' proposals without question ( uploads/2018/07/press-annoucementdisclosure-pilot-approved-by-cprc.pdf).

Known adverse documents

The PD contains an express duty on litigating parties to disclose known adverse documents, unless they are privileged, regardless of any order for disclosure. The aim is to ensure that the moves to rein in disclosure do not threaten the English court's ability to do justice based on all relevant facts. If there is a smoking gun that at least one of the parties is aware of, it should come out.

As formulated in the draft PD, however, this provision gave rise to obvious questions for disclosure by companies and other organisations, including whose knowledge is relevant. The PD seeks to clarify that it is the knowledge of any person with accountability or responsibility for the relevant events or circumstances or the conduct of the proceedings. It is also necessary to take reasonable steps to check the position with anyone who had this accountability or responsibility but has since left the organisation. This is helpful, but there remains obvious scope for dispute.


The draft PD stated that, where a party wishes to claim a right or duty to withhold documents, most obviously on grounds of privilege, it must describe the document (or part of a document or class of documents) and explain with reasonable precision the grounds for exercising the right or duty. It was not clear, however, whether this was meant to signal a move away the current practice of describing privileged documents in generic terms, towards a USstyle privilege log with its attendant risk of satellite litigation. The PD addresses this concern, deleting the reference to "reasonable precision" and providing welcome clarifi cation that a claim to privilege may, unless the court orders otherwise, be made in a form that treats privileged documents as a class.

Proof of the pudding

The reforms have been broadly welcomed by court users and the judiciary. If accompanied by the requisite culture change, they could make a real impact on the burden and costs of disclosure in many cases. There are, however, a number of issues that may need to be clarifi ed through case law, including most signifi cantly the provisions relating to known adverse documents. As ever, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating: in this case, the two-year pilot which is to be conducted before a fi nal decision is made on the reforms.

Originally published in PLC Magazine

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions