Bermuda: Electronic Discovery In Bermuda: A Summary

Last Updated: 24 August 2018
Article by Alex Potts

The Rules of the Supreme Court of Bermuda 1985 do not yet contain any detailed rules, practice direction, or guidance specifically dealing with electronic discovery.

However, it is submitted that the Supreme Court of Bermuda clearly has the jurisdiction to give directions to the parties as to the manner in which they conduct discovery, including electronic discovery in any appropriate case.

The source of this jurisdiction is located in, or supported by:

  • Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Supreme Court Act 19051
  • Section 75 of the Evidence Act 1905
  • Section 14 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999
  • The Rules of the Supreme Court of Bermuda 1985, including, in particular:

    • RSC Order 1A, Rule 1
    • RSC Order 1A, Rule 3
    • RSC Order 1A, Rule 42
    • RSC Order 3, Rule 5(1) (which gives the court power to abridge time)
    • RSC Order 24, Rule 1(5)(a)
    • RSC Order 24, Rule 3(1)
    • RSC Order 24, Rule 7
    • RSC Order 24, Rule 8
    • RSC Order 24, Rule 14
    • RSC Order 29, Rule 2
    • Paragraph 3 of the Commercial Court Practice Direction, Circular No. 8 of 2006, supplementing RSC Order 72.

The existence of such a jurisdiction is also supported by:

  • The Bermuda case law, the pre-CPR English case law, and the commonwealth case law that has recognised that, for the purposes of discovery under RSC Order 24 and under RSC Order 29 (or analogous procedural rules in other jurisdictions), discoverable documents include electronic documents and electronic infomation storage media: see, for example, Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Ltd [1978], Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No. 9) [1991], Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Limited v University of Tasmania [2003], and Re Lehman Re Ltd [2011].
  • The Bermuda case law that has recognised the importance and effect of the overriding objective and the Court's duty of active case management under RSC Order 1A: see, for example, Ribaroff v Williams [2014], per Kawaley CJ at Paragraphs 13 and 14:

    The essence of modern judicial case management, applying the principles embodied in Order 1A of the Rules to the application and interpretation of the other Rules, is pragmatism and bringing tailor-made decision-making to bear which takes into account the particular factual and legal circumstances of each case ... it is well settled that the dominant aim of case management is to make civil proceedings more efficient by avoiding the wastage of costs. Wasted costs in the past often flowed from the fact that the parties themselves were largely allowed to dictate the course of litigation, with the Court not required to make any decisions of substance until trial.
  • The post-CPR English case law that has recognised the English Court's power to tailor directions relating to electronic discovery according to the circumstances of the case. See, for example: Digicel St Lucia Limited v Cable & Wireless Plc [2008]; Goodale & Ors v The Ministry of Justice & Ors [2009]; Vector Investments v Williams [2009]; Fiddes v Channel 4 TV Corporation [2010]; West African Gas Pipeline Company Ltd v Willbros Global Holdings Inc [2012]; Mueller Europe Ltd v Central Roofing (South Wales) Ltd [2012]; Montpelier Estates Ltd v Leeds City Council [2012]; and Re Atrium Traning Services Ltd, Smailes & Anor v McNally & Ors [2013].

It is submitted that the Supreme Court of Bermuda also has an inherent jurisdiction to give directions to the parties as to the manner in which they conduct electronic discovery, as part of its inherent jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of civil litigation before the court (save to the extent that to do so would be in direct contravention of primary legislation or secondary legislation, such as the Rules of the Supreme Court of Bermuda 1985)3. It is further submitted that the Court's regulation of the parties' approach to electronic discovery would not contravene any primary legislation or secondary legislation applicable in Bermuda.

If any further support is needed for the proposition that the court's power to regulate discovery is within the scope of its inherent jurisdiction, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that "the remedy of discovery (now known as disclosure) was adopted by the courts of equity in order to aid the administration of justice", and that it was only subsequently codified in rules of court: "... the scope of disclosure has long been seen as a matter on which the court has jurisdiction to decide"4. This supports the proposition that the jurisdiction to order discovery is part of the court's inherent jurisdiction, and that it is not limited by any codification in the rules of court.

Furthermore, both the Court of Appeal for Bermuda and the Supreme Court of Bermuda have recognised that there are circumstances in which the court is entitled to regulate its procedure as a matter of its inherent jurisdiction, notwithstanding a lacuna in the rules. See, for example, Phoenix Global and Phoenix Capital v Citigroup and Bank of Bermuda [2007], per Kawaley J at Paragraph 90:

A gap in the Rules as a matter of broader principle should not be regarded as an impediment to giving effect to applicable constitutional, statutory or international obligations. In New Skies Satellite BV v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2005], Evans JA gave the Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Bermuda in a case where a statute conferred a positive right to enforce foreign arbitration rules but there was a "lacuna" in the Rules. On one construction, the fact that the Rules were silent as to the applicable procedure interfered with the positive statutory right. The Court of Appeal's primary finding was that the "lacuna" was no impediment to enforcement proceedings being commenced. Evans JA observed (at Pages 8–9): "If it be a case of ambiguity, we should prefer the construction which enables Bermuda to perform the international treaty obligations undertaken on its behalf.

Experience from other jurisdictions such as England and Wales5 (and, to some extent, Bermuda6) suggests that it is beneficial for the parties and the Court to address the issue of electronic discovery at an early stage, before the parties have each embarked substantially on the discovery process unilaterally, with a view to resolving any contentious issues before (a) they interfere with the procedural timetable at a later stage or (b) result in costs being wasted unnecessarily.

It is recognised, of course, that while the English Civil Procedure Rules contain an electronic disclosure Practice Direction, PD 31B, that deals with the English court's approach to Disclosure of Electronic Documents, and the obligations of the parties, the extent to which CPR PD 31B should be followed or applied by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in any particular case is subject to the exercise of the court's discretion taking into account the circumstances of the particular case before the court, and bearing in mind the differences between (a) general 'discovery' in Bermuda under RSC Order 24 (which, for example, includes Peruvian Guano 'train of inquiry' documents), and (b) 'standard disclosure' in England under CPR Part 31 (which does not)7. However, it is submitted that the English CPR PD 31B does, at the very least, provide some useful guidance, in the absence of a specific local rule or Practice Direction.

In an ideal world, with a view to promoting greater certainty and reducing the scope for satellite disputes regarding the parties' compliance with their discovery obligations (with associated costs consequences), Bermuda would introduce specific rules relating to electronic discovery, whether by way of further amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court or by way of Practice Direction.


1. These statutory provisions were discussed at length by Kawaley J in Phoenix Global and Phoenix Capital v Citigroup and Bank of Bermuda [2007], at Paragraphs 54 ff, in the context of a security for costs application.

2. RSC Order 1A provides that the court has a duty to further the overriding objective by managing cases actively, including by "making use of technology" (RSC Order 1A, Rule 4(2)(k)), "encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings" (RSC Order 1A, Rule 4(2)(a)), "fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case" (RSC Order 1A, Rule 4(2)(g)), "considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it" (RSC Order 1A, Rule 4(2)h)), and "giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently" (RSC Order 1A, Rule 4(2)(l)).

3. See Moore v Assignment Courier Ltd [1977], Langley v North West Water Authority [1991] , Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2009], and Al Rawi v Security Service [2012], per Lord Dyson at Paragraphs 18 and 20.

4. Al Rawi v Security Service [2012], per Lord Dyson at Paragraph 20.

5. See, for example, Goodale & Ors v The Ministry of Justice & Ors [2009], Vector Investments v Williams [2009], West African Gas Pipeline Company Ltd v Willbros Global Holdings Inc [2012], and Re Atrium Traning Services Ltd, Smailes & Anor v McNally & Ors [2013].

6. There is no reported Bermuda case addressing issues of electronic discovery in any detail. However, in Re Lehman Re Ltd [2011], Kawaley J confirmed that, as a matter of Bermuda law, "the term "documents" in the modern era clearly includes electronic data as well": see also the notes to the 1999 Supreme Court Practice at 24/2/3, and the authorities there cited. Addressing electronic documents in a different context, Ward CJ varied an ex parte Anton Piller order in Crane v Booker [1999] granting the plaintiff the right to seize various emails, electronic documents and computer discs held by the Defendants. The author also has practical experience of certain first-instance judges of Bermuda's Commercial Court accepting the submissions summarized above, albeit in unreported and untranscribed oral ex tempore Rulings.

7. See, in this context: Nichia v Argos [2007], in which the English Court of Appeal referred to standard disclosure and the reasonable search and emphasised the difference between this approach to disclosure under the CPR and the former approach to discovery under the RSC.

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.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
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