ICG Manager Limited & Ors v Collins International Valuation UK LLP

Once Extended Disclosure has been ordered, a party must produce disclosed documents in full unless a recognised withholding or redaction ground applies. A party cannot redact material merely because it considers the material insufficiently important. Redaction under paragraph 16.1 of Practice Direction 57AD requires the data to be both irrelevant to an issue and confidential.

Where redaction is challenged, the applicant must show a real possibility of inadequate compliance. The court retains a discretion under paragraph 17.1, controlled by reasonableness and proportionality under paragraphs 17.2 and 6.4. Confidentiality, probative value, collateral issues, cost and trial management may all be relevant. A Hollander order is a pragmatic, borderline-case measure and should not become a licence for speculative disclosure.

The claim concerns an allegedly negligent valuation of a shopping centre which secured lending made by the Second and Third Claimants. The Claimants rely on a counterfactual case that, following a competent valuation, they would have sold the property earlier and avoided loss.

The Defendant applied under paragraph 17.1 of Practice Direction 57AD for extensive redactions in documents produced under an Extended Disclosure order to be removed. The Claimants relied on confidentiality, irrelevance and proportionality. The Defendant also sought further disclosure, and the Claimants sought additional time for witness statements.

The central issues were whether the redacted material was relevant, whether there had been or might have been inadequate compliance with Extended Disclosure, how the court should exercise its discretion, and whether a Hollander order was appropriate.

1. Applicable principles. The court held that, once documents relevant to a pleaded issue have been ordered for Extended Disclosure, they must generally be produced in full, subject to paragraphs 14 and 16 of Practice Direction 57AD. Paragraph 16.1 permits redaction only where the data is both irrelevant to an issue and confidential. Relevance is assessed by reference to the pleadings.
2. The threshold under paragraph 17.1 is satisfied by a real possibility of inadequate compliance; proof on the balance of probabilities is unnecessary. If the threshold is met, the court has a discretion. The proposed order must be reasonable and proportionate under paragraph 17.2, having regard to paragraph 6.4, although other relevant matters, including confidentiality, may also be considered.
3. The court applied the two-stage approach in O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: first, whether the material is logically probative and therefore relevant; secondly, whether it should nevertheless be required or admitted in the circumstances. The redacted material could bear on the counterfactual because decisions concerning comparable assets might amount to similar fact evidence.
4. The court accepted that disclosure concerning other clients could generate extensive collateral issues. Meaningful comparison would require consideration of the asset’s prospects, saleability, borrower covenant, likely shortfall and the client’s risk appetite. Confidentiality attaching to other clients’ data carried substantial weight.
5. A Hollander order was appropriate for investment reports supplied to the Second and Third Claimants, redacted internal emails concerning those Claimants’ other assets, and 41 relevant pages of the daybook. The material was to be shown initially only to the Defendant’s legal advisers and not used without further order. The order was not a licence for further fishing or uncontrolled collateral disclosure.
6. The application was adjourned for further consideration after compliance. The Claimants’ time for witness statements was extended finally to 4pm on 12 June 2026, with liberty to apply for further statements if additional material was later unredacted or disclosed.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.