UK: An Update On The New Disclosure Pilot Scheme (Practice Direction 51U)

On 1 January 2019, a new two-year disclosure pilot scheme started in the Business and Property Courts across England and Wales. The scheme is ambitious, aiming to address the costs and challenges of the existing disclosure regime, to embrace the use of legal technology and to encourage a more bespoke approach.

Application of the Pilot Scheme

The pilot applies to new and existing proceedings in the Business and Property Courts across England and Wales, including the Commercial Court but with notable exceptions, such as the Admiralty Court.

The scope of its application to cases commenced before 1 January 2019 has recently been clarified in the case of UTB LLC v Sheffield United which confirms that the pilot will apply to all subsisting proceedings in the Business and Property Courts even where the claim was issued and an order for standard disclosure was made prior to 1 January 2019 under the old CPR rules. Upon the Defendant's application for (extended) disclosure in April 2019, the Court held that although the existing order was not to be disturbed, the application was to be governed by the new rules and accordingly the Court applied the relevant paragraphs of PD51U. Practically, this decision demonstrates that even parties currently operating under a pre-pilot disclosure order need to be aware of the new rules and how they may affect any application.

Looking ahead, although the pilot scheme runs for two years, it will apply beyond the end of this period for the duration of the proceedings – unless they transfer out of the Business and Property Courts to a different court that makes a different disclosure order.

Summary of Pilot Scheme

The pilot is being used to test a set of new disclosure rules, set out in Practice Direction 51U, which it is hoped will result in a more efficient and flexible disclosure process, tailored to the individual requirements of each case.

The key changes being introduced by the pilot are:

  • Duties of the parties: The duties of the parties to preserve documents have been codified and apply under the pilot as soon as a party knows that it is or may become a party to proceedings that have been or may be commenced. This is a different test to the current test of preserving documents "as soon as litigation is contemplated" and requires disclosure to be considered at an earlier stage. In particular, the parties must take reasonable document preservation steps, including: suspending document destruction processes, obligations to notify employees and former employees of the requirement to preserve documents and taking reasonable steps to prevent third parties who hold documents on a party's behalf not to destroy documents. Given the prescriptive nature of this duty, parties and their legal representatives should carefully record compliance. Other duties cover acting honestly, undertaking a search for documents in a responsible and conscientious manner and using reasonable efforts to avoid providing irrelevant documents to the other side (i.e. "data dumping"). Legal representatives have separate duties, which include assisting the client to meets its Disclosure Duties and reviewing documents to ensure they are privileged.
  • Disclosure of known adverse documents: Once proceedings have started, parties are under a duty to disclose known adverse documents (unless they are privileged) regardless of any disclosure order made. An adverse document is one which contradicts or materially damages the disclosing party's argument or version of events or supports the other side's. Known adverse documents are the adverse documents within a party's control of which that party is "actually aware" without undertaking any further searches. For companies, it is the awareness of current and former employees with accountability/responsibility for the events that are the subject of the case, or for the conduct of proceedings, which is relevant. Although there has been some suggestion that this may result in negative behavioural changes - perhaps through parties who previously may have searched for adverse documents to assess case prospects instead choosing to remain ignorant by not carrying out searches - the reality is that adverse documents have always been disclosable and there have always been litigants who are inclined to move quickly and reactively before carrying out full searches, with the result that adverse documents emerge at a later stage. Equally, it seems unlikely that this change in the rules will change the behaviour of those more cautious parties who like to assess their case prospects before litigating.
  • Initial Disclosure: At the same time as serving their statements of case, parties will be required to provide electronic copies of the key documents they rely on and that are necessary for the other party to understand the case they have to meet and file an Initial Disclosure List of Documents. Initial Disclosure will not be required if it would involve the provision of more than the greater of 1,000 pages or 200 documents by either party. It is likely that many high-value, complex disputes will not require Initial Disclosure due to the volume of documents. It is not clear how these limits are to be calculated, for example do multi-page spreadsheets count by page or as a single document? Is each message in an instant messaging chat a new document or should the relevant conversation be printed and the pages counted? Such questions may be answered by cooperation between parties but that is not always possible in litigation. Alternatively, the parties may agree (which agreement can be overruled), or the court may direct that it is not required. Tactically, parties may be reluctant to incur time and costs disclosing documents at this early stage so this requirement may reduce instances of litigation being deployed to bring the other side to the table or lead to many parties agreeing not to make Initial Disclosure and waiting to request Extended Disclosure.
  • Extended Disclosure: Within 28 days of the final statements of case, each party should state whether or not it is likely to request Extended Disclosure. If this is the case, the parties will need to produce and work to agree the Disclosure Review Document (DRD), which guides the continuing disclosure process. The first section of the DRD requires the parties to identify the list of Issues for Disclosure, i.e. issues in dispute about which the court will need to see contemporaneous documents in order to make a determination (not simply every issue in dispute). It is against this list that the parties and the court consider the five "Models" of Extended Disclosure:
Model A Disclosure confined to known adverse documents.
Model B Limited disclosure, including the documents falling under Initial Disclosure, where they have not already been provided.
Model C Request-led search-based disclosure. This is the disclosure of particular documents or narrow classes of documents relating to particular issues for disclosure, resembling Redfern Schedules commonly produced during the document production stage in international arbitration.
Model D Narrow search-based disclosure, with or without narrative documents (being those documents relevant only to the background or context of material facts/events rather than the Issues for Disclosure). The equivalent of standard disclosure under the existing regime.
Model E Wide search-based disclosure. This will only be ordered in exceptional cases and extends Model D disclosure by also requiring parties to disclose documents which may lead to a train of inquiry resulting in the identification of further documents for disclosure, similar to the pre-CPR Peruvian Guano test.

Different Models may be ordered for different Issues for Disclosure and different Models can be used for each party on the same Issues. There is no longer a 'default form' of disclosure, previously standard disclosure/Model D. There is also no presumption that either party is entitled to Extended Disclosure. The value of this new approach is that any disclosure order can be tailored to the demands of the particular case. Further, any order must be reasonable and proportionate, with regard to the nature and complexity of the issues, the importance of the case, the likelihood of documents existing with probative value, the number of documents, the cost of searches and the financial position of each party. It seems likely that Models A and B will only be suitable for the most straightforward of cases, and extensive Model E disclosure will be rare. In most cases, the question will be whether the courts are willing to order Model C rather than Model D disclosure which presents little change from the current position.

  • Technology: The use of legal technology is a striking feature of the pilot, which places express duties on parties to consider the use of technology to conduct cost effective disclosure and discuss the use of technology-assisted review software and techniques. The DRD requires parties to consider which analytics tools/methods they intend to use and whether technology or computer assisted review tools (TAR) will be used. Analytics includes techniques such as email threading, de-duplication, language identification, clustering and concept searching. TAR makes use of more complex technological tools, recognising that jurisdictions around the world, including the English Courts in the landmark decision of Pyrrho Investments v MWB Property, have started sanctioning the use of predictive coding in disclosure in order to avoid the huge expense incurred from manual searches of millions of documents. While embracing such advances, the DRD also makes clear that such tools are still reliant on the input of senior lawyers. We should not overestimate the cost savings legal technology will bring, especially while the tools are still developing in sophistication and the guidance and direction of experienced lawyers will be required to manage the process and risks. However, active participation in the use of legal technology as envisaged by the pilot should provide a useful indication of the value of such systems in reducing the cost and time burden of the disclosure process at the end of the two year period.
  • Cost budgeting: As is clear from the factors the court is required to consider and the motivations for introducing a new disclosure regime, the costs of disclosure are an important feature and parties will be required to provide an estimate of the likely costs of disclosure in the DRD so the court can make the appropriate order.

Wholesale Cultural Change

The intention behind the Jackson Reforms introduced in 2013 was to reform and deal with disclosure more proportionately; however, in practice, this did not happen, with standard disclosure remaining the norm. The intention now is for the new scheme to bring about a wholesale cultural change leading to a disclosure process that is more efficient and flexible, able to adapt to individual cases and reflect developments in technology. In UTB LLC v Sheffield United, the Chancellor took the opportunity to comment on the pilot generally emphasising that it was intended to effect a cultural change "driven by reasonableness and proportionality".

Although the intention is clear, there are a number of areas where the rules themselves lack clarity and where the new regime appears more complex than the current one. It will be necessary to see what approach the Courts take in practice with some of these issues and litigants should be prepared for some level of uncertainty as the scheme is implemented. However, the benefit of a pilot scheme is that the experience of and feedback from parties and their legal representatives, should be taken into account in the development of the final version.

The greatest cultural shift for litigants will be the practical effects of the introduction of Initial Disclosure and the ongoing duty to disclose known adverse documents. Parties will have to think about disclosure earlier and may be required to disclose documents not referred to in their submissions at a stage when the issues are still developing during pleadings. The separation between the duty to disclose known adverse documents and any disclosure order made means these documents may not be produced in context, which in turn may encourage parties to gravitate towards the more extensive Models of Extended Disclosure. If this means that the vast majority of cases follow Model C or D disclosure, it may turn out that the overall impact of the pilot will be smaller than hoped.

Whatever the eventual outcome of this initiative, we are likely to see continuing large-scale changes to litigation processes in the coming years as the English Courts adapt to the challenges presented by ever-increasing volumes of digital data and by artificial intelligence in order to ensure the provision of world-class litigation services.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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