Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: Recent Trends In Disclosure: No Change?

The following article was originally published in The New Law Journal on 14th January 2011. The author is Richard Langley, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution at Bircham Dyson Bell.

In a recent lecture to the London Solicitors Litigation Association, Charles Hollander QC suggested that Lord Woolf's attempt to reduce the amount of disclosure had been generally ignored.

Under CPR standard disclosure, a party is only required to disclose documents a) on which they rely and b) which adversely affect or support any party's case. This was a radical shift from the pre-CPR position (governed by the Peruvian Guano case) where discovery extended to all relevant documents including documents which might lead to a train of enquiry enabling a party to advance their case or damage that of their opponent. However, in practice, most parties are still disclosing all documents of any relevance to the issues and the Court of Appeal has made some strong criticisms of solicitors