London Borough of Lambeth v Harry

Standard disclosure is governed by the categories in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 31.6. The statements of case provide the essential starting point for identifying relevance. Standard disclosure does not extend to documents sought merely to generate a train of inquiry. Part 18 questions must be reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable a party to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet. Issues removed by an earlier strike-out order cannot be revived indirectly through disclosure or information requests. In a breach of confidence claim, the truth or justification of the underlying allegations is generally irrelevant, although whether they were made maliciously or in bad faith may be relevant to a public-interest defence. Properly claimed litigation privilege remains effective unless a sufficient basis for setting it aside is shown.

The claimant brought a breach of confidence claim after the defendant allegedly manipulated electronically supplied subject-access-request material, identified a confidential informant, and used that information in threatened proceedings. Parts of the defence and the counterclaim concerning data-protection duties had previously been struck out, while allegations that the informant acted maliciously or in bad faith remained relevant to a possible public-interest defence.

The defendant sought extensive standard disclosure, answers to Part 18 questions, and revised case-management directions. The central issues were whether further documents were relevant and withheld, whether privilege had been properly claimed, and whether the requests were necessary and proportionate.

1. Applications dismissed. The defendant’s applications for further disclosure and Part 18 answers were dismissed. No variation of the existing case-management directions was required.
2. The essential starting point for a disclosure application is identification of the issues from the statements of case. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 31.6, standard disclosure covers documents on which a party relies, documents adversely affecting or supporting a party’s case, and documents required by a relevant practice direction. Descriptions of what documents might show do not create additional disclosure criteria.
3. Standard disclosure does not include documents sought merely because they may lead to a train of inquiry. The defendant had not established the existence of further particular documents within the categories sought. Much of the material had been disclosed generously, despite being only marginally relevant.
4. The live issues in the claim were confidentiality, the circumstances in which the defendant received the information, use in breach of confidence, and whether a public-interest defence arose because the information was not confidential or the allegations were malicious or made in bad faith. The truth or justification of the allegations themselves was irrelevant. The defendant could not use disclosure to reintroduce data-protection issues and other matters removed by the earlier strike-out order.
5. The claimant was prima facie entitled to rely on litigation privilege for communications between its external solicitor and the informant concerning the litigation. The authority relied on by the defendant did not assist him, and no detailed basis for displacing privilege had been established.
6. Part 18 requests must be reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable a party to prepare its own case or understand the case it has to meet. The questions had either already been answered or were irrelevant and disproportionate.