Astra Asset Management UK Ltd & Anor v MUSST Investments LLB & Ors

Extended disclosure is a process directed to identifying documents relevant to the key issues in dispute. It must remain reasonable and proportionate having regard to the overriding objective. Parties and their representatives must cooperate, including by discussing search methodology and proposed technology-assisted review. A procedural failure does not necessarily justify further disclosure where there is no evidence that material documents were missed. An order revisiting an existing disclosure order requires a good reason, and an order under paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 51U also requires necessity for the just disposal of the proceedings.

Two related business claims concerned disclosure conducted under the disclosure pilot in Practice Direction 51U. Astra sought orders requiring further explanations, additional searches, disclosure concerning particular individuals and financial expectations, inspection of unredacted documents, and correction of Musst’s disclosure statement. The applications followed earlier disclosure directions and correspondence between the parties. During the hearing, a further issue emerged concerning the deletion of historical emails stored through UltraVault. The court had to determine whether the applications were spent or premature, whether further disclosure was reasonable and proportionate, and whether Musst should provide a witness statement in addition to correcting its disclosure statement.

1. Applications. The December application was effectively spent because Musst had answered the six queries. Its issue had also been premature. The April application was dealt with on the live points.
2. Disclosure principles. The disclosure pilot requires cooperation and a genuine attempt to agree the process. Extended disclosure must be reasonable and proportionate under paragraph 6.4 of Practice Direction 51U. Disclosure is a means to a fair resolution of the defined issues, not an end in itself.
3. Search methodology and technology. Parties intending to use technology-assisted review should notify the other parties and discuss the proposed methodology. The failure to notify Astra was a failure of process, but it did not justify reopening the disclosure exercise where there was no proper basis to object to the technology or evidence of material documents being missed. The approach in Agents’ Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd [2019] EWHC 3104 was accepted.
4. Further searches. Searches using broad terms, searches relating to Mr Dholakia and Mr Saksena, and searches for further financial documents were refused because they offered no real prospect of material benefit or were disproportionate.
5. Redactions. Redaction was permissible where data was irrelevant and confidential, subject to an adequate explanation. The redactions examined were careful and there were no prima facie grounds for requiring unredacted copies or further disclosure.
6. UltraVault. The disclosure statement required amendment to explain the deletion of historical emails by the third-party provider. A witness statement was not presently necessary because the revised disclosure statement would be signed by a principal. The court reserved the possibility of requiring one if genuine doubt remained after amendment.