Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Beko Poland Manufacturing Sp z o.o & Ors

An application for early disclosure should be refused where no compelling reason is shown, the requested material is due to be disclosed in the ordinary course, and its likely evidential value is limited. The court may assess a discrete disclosure application in the context of wider case management. Where the application forms part of a strategy intended to facilitate early mediation, the costs may appropriately be made costs in the case, even though the application itself has been refused.

In the Grenfell Tower litigation, the claimants sought early disclosure from the Beko defendants of contemporaneous inspection notes and photographs relating to a fridge freezer identified by the Inquiry as the point of origin of the fire. The claimants had pleaded a positive case about the probable cause of the fire and sought the material to assist inspection of the appliance and to support an intended early mediation.

The Beko defendants opposed the application. The court refused it and subsequently determined the appropriate costs order.

1. Application refused. The claimants showed no compelling reason for early disclosure of the inspection notes and related photographs. The post-inspection report identified possible causes but did not establish the cause of the fire in the fridge, so there was little reason to expect that the contemporaneous material would provide the answer.
2. The material would in any event be disclosed in due course, subject to privilege. The case for early disclosure weakened further when the prospect of an early mediation receded.
3. The application was not to be considered in isolation. It formed part of a wider case-management strategy intended to secure an early but effective mediation, supported by a significant number of defendants. The court had reached the conclusion that early mediation would not be effective only with some reluctance.
4. Although Beko had been the successful party on the discrete application and had incurred costs specifically referable to it, the appropriate order was costs in the case, treating the application’s costs as part of the overall case management of the proceedings.