Beckham & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Specific disclosure is an exceptional and proportionate case-management remedy. The applicant must establish that it is reasonable to suppose that the proposed search may identify documents which advance its case, damage the disclosing party’s case, or lead to such a train of enquiry. The order must be necessary for the fair disposal of the action and proportionate to the relevance and importance of the issue.

A credible assertion that documents are protected by legal professional privilege will ordinarily answer an application for their disclosure. Broad requests founded only on speculation or inference should be refused. Where a focused enquiry may realistically identify relevant material, the court may direct best endeavours without deciding whether resulting documents are within the party’s control.

The defendant, publisher of the News of the World, applied for specific disclosure in the claimants’ libel action concerning an article alleging serious difficulties in the claimants’ marriage. Eight categories of documents were sought, including public-relations material, records relating to alleged affairs, telephone records, travel documents, agency arrangements, holiday arrangements and unedited documentary footage.

The claimants also sought disclosure of journalists’ recordings of interviews with their former nanny. The court had to determine whether the requested searches were justified under the disclosure provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and whether the material was relevant, proportionate, privileged or within the claimants’ control.

1. The defendant’s applications were dealt with category by category. The court applied the requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 31.6, Part 31.8 and Part 31.12, together with paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the Practice Direction. Specific disclosure requires an appropriate case and a reasonable basis for supposing that the proposed search may produce relevant information. The order must be necessary for the fair disposal of the action and proportionate to the relevance and importance of the issue.
2. The application for general “Brand Beckham” material was refused. The request was potentially enormous, and the defendant had not displaced the claimants’ assertion that no documents evidenced a strategy to promote a false image. The requests concerning travel, the alleged continuing arrangement with a photographer, termination of the agency relationship and the Courcheval holiday were likewise refused because the proposed inferences lacked an adequate evidential foundation or further disclosure would add little to the material already available.
3. The application concerning documents about the decision not to sue over the alleged affair was refused. The court accepted the claimants’ credible assertion that the relevant discussions involved legal advisers and were privileged. Such an assertion would ordinarily provide a complete answer to an application for disclosure.
4. Limited enquiries were ordered concerning the telephone number known as Db3. The court accepted that it was not registered to the first claimant, but there remained a possibility that it belonged to SFX. Enquiries were therefore directed without deciding whether any resulting records were within the claimants’ control. A similar undertaking was accepted concerning itemised bills for the number allegedly associated with Ms Canadas.
5. For the documentary programme, the claimants’ advisers were directed to identify, where reasonably possible, the location and occasion of the alleged incidents and to view tapes likely to contain them. Reviewing all 100 hours of footage would be disproportionate, but a targeted review was justified.
6. The claimants’ application for the nanny-interview recordings succeeded. The court held that the totality of what she told the journalists could bear on whether disclosure was justified in the public interest and whether she appeared to be a credible source. The recordings were ordered to be disclosed.

Not stated in the judgment.