Yates v Revenue and Customs & Anor

Where deceased asbestos claims require employment histories to identify potential tortfeasors, the specialist asbestos court may approve an interim disclosure procedure designed to preserve expedition and proportionality. The procedure may require a claim against persons unknown, followed by an application under CPR 31.17 for third-party disclosure by HMRC. The court may permit applications to be made by email without the usual Part 23 form, provided the evidential and legal requirements for disclosure are met. Where the parties adopt a pragmatic interim arrangement pending legislative reform, the court may approve the procedure without determining the underlying questions concerning pre-action disclosure or HMRC’s statutory confidentiality obligations.

The application arose from HMRC’s changed position that it could not disclose employment schedules for deceased persons outside issued proceedings. The information was needed to identify employers potentially liable in asbestos disease claims. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers participated because of the issue’s wider significance.

The parties ultimately agreed an interim procedure pending anticipated legislative reform and asked the court to approve it on the basis of written submissions. The central questions of statutory interpretation and jurisdiction were therefore left undecided.

The court approved the interim procedure for deceased asbestos claims proceeding, or to be issued, in the specialist asbestos list at the Royal Courts of Justice.

1. The court expressly declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to order pre-action disclosure of HMRC employment schedules, or whether the statutory regime governing HMRC prevented voluntary disclosure outside pending proceedings.
2. The approved procedure required the claimant to issue a claim against persons unknown in relation to the relevant asbestos claim. The claimant could then apply by email to a specialist Master for an order requiring HMRC disclosure.
3. The application had to include a supporting witness statement addressing the criteria for disclosure under CPR 31.17, a draft order and a completed disclosure-details schedule. The documents had to be served on HMRC.
4. Consistently with the specialist court’s established practice, the application need not use a formal Part 23 application notice, although the substantive evidential and legal requirements remained applicable.
5. HMRC was expected not to oppose disclosure where the requirements of CPR 31.17 were met. Unless objection was made within 14 days, the court would generally proceed on that footing.

The procedure was confined to the London specialist court and would cease to apply if legislative reform supplied an alternative. There was no order on the application, save that the Applicant and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers were to pay HMRC’s costs, summarily assessed at £1,325.