Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Further generic disclosure should be ordered only where its likely value justifies its cost and remains proportionate to the issues requiring determination. Extensive admissions may reduce or eliminate generic issues, but they do not extinguish the continuing obligation under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to give standard disclosure until liability and damages are resolved in each individual claim. Aggravated damages are primarily compensatory and depend on the particular claimant’s injury, including any distress caused by the defendant’s conduct. Accordingly, issues relevant only to an individual claim should be pleaded and disclosed specifically. The court may nevertheless order targeted specific disclosure where the request is proportionate and materially relevant.

The claimants brought numerous civil claims arising from alleged mobile telephone voicemail interception and related unlawful activity by News Group Newspapers Ltd and Glenn Mulcaire. The applications concerned amendment of generic pleadings and further disclosure in preparation for the second tranche of claims. The claim for exemplary damages was withdrawn during the hearing. The remaining disputes concerned allegations of concealment and aggravation, the distinction between generic and case-specific issues, and whether further searches were justified under the disclosure provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

1. The amendment application was resolved substantially by agreement. Allegations concerning concealment were to be pleaded in individual cases where relevant to a claimant’s claim for aggravated damages. The causation link between the defendant’s conduct and the claimant’s distress was to be pleaded specifically. News Group Newspapers Ltd was to plead and give standard disclosure in relation to the individual pleadings.
2. Aggravated damages are primarily compensatory. They depend on the effect of the defendant’s conduct on the particular claimant, although the defendant’s motives and subsequent conduct may aggravate the injury. The question therefore requires individual, rather than generic, assessment.
3. In light of the extensive admissions, no substantial generic issues remained. Further generic disclosure was refused because the existing material was sufficient to permit a fair trial, the likely additional value was uncertain, and the proposed searches would be disproportionate to their cost. The court did not hold that admissions replaced standard disclosure. The obligation under Part 31.6 continued until liability and damages were admitted, assessed or agreed in the particular case.
4. Case-specific disclosure remained necessary where an individual claimant alleged matters such as interception before 2001, email access or concealment. Disclosure concerning Mr Mulcaire’s lawful activities was not relevant to assessing damages for unlawful conduct.
5. The court ordered disclosure under Part 31.12 of the nine identified emails between News Group Newspapers Ltd and Mr Mulcaire sent or received before 8 August 2006. The request was proportionate and materially relevant.
6. No further generic standard disclosure was ordered at that stage. The court retained power to reconsider the position if circumstances changed and directed the parties to proceed towards the selection of lead cases.