Paddick v Associated Newspapers Ltd.

For standard disclosure, the issues in the action are identified by the parties’ pleadings. Assertions in a witness statement about the truth or falsity of allegations do not, without more, enlarge the pleaded issues or trigger disclosure of documents on that subject.

A party may withhold irrelevant parts of a document where its disclosure statement identifies them as irrelevant, subject to the court being satisfied that the statement is inaccurate. In a privacy or confidentiality claim, the court may consider whether information was ostensibly credible and whether publication was justified by the public interest. Analogies with qualified privilege must be assessed in their context. Disclosed material must also be supplied in an intelligible form, but the court left that issue unresolved.

The claimant, a senior police officer, brought a claim for damages and an injunction concerning publication by the defendant newspaper of intimate information about his relationships, health, beliefs and opinions. He alleged infringement of his right to respect for private life, whether or not the information was true.

The defendant did not positively plead that the information was true. It relied instead on its ostensibly credible character and on the claimant’s decision not to complain about some published allegations. Two applications arose: whether the claimant had to disclose the complete versions of two witness statements from which extracts had been disclosed, and who should bear the costs of an application for complete transcripts of disclosed audio tapes.

1. Disclosure of witness statements. The defendant’s application for disclosure of the complete statements was dismissed. For the purposes of standard disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 31.6, each party’s case is found in its pleadings. The claimant’s assertions that information was false, and his denial that he had accepted the accuracy or public relevance of unchallenged passages, did not make truth or falsity a pleaded issue.
2. The court accepted the principle in GE Capital Corporate Finance Group Ltd v Bankers Trust Co [1995] 1 WLR 172 that a party’s assertion of irrelevance is conclusive unless the court is satisfied from the documents, pleadings, affidavit or circumstances that it is inaccurate. The undisclosed portions were therefore properly withheld on the basis that they were irrelevant to the pleaded issues.
3. The defendant’s reliance on ostensibly credible information was understood as relating to the degree of proof required for a public-interest defence. The approach in A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 and the similar observations in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 were relevant to that issue. The court also applied the reasoning in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] QB 321 that the justification for publication must be assessed objectively by reference to matters known at the time, without hindsight.
4. Transcripts and costs. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 31.4, a document includes anything in which information is recorded. The court indicated that disclosure may arguably require material to be provided in an intelligible form, but no firm decision on that issue was necessary. As the defendant agreed to provide complete transcripts by 31 December 2003, the claimant’s costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the case.