Case No. Case-No.-CO-5942-2017

[2002] EWCA Civ 1409, at [50]) and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2017 which includes at sections 6.4 and 14:“6.4 Duty of Candour 6.4.1 There is a special duty which applies to parties to judicial review known as the ‘duty of candour’ which requires the parties to ensure that all relevant information and all material facts are put before the Court. This means that parties must disclose any information or material facts which either support or undermine their case. 6.4.2 It is very important that you comply with the duty of candour. The duty is explained in more detail below at paragraph 14.1 of this Guide. …. 14. Duty of Candour 14.1. There is a special duty which applies to parties to judicial review known as the ‘duty of candour’ which requires the parties to ensure that all relevant information and facts are put before the Court. This means that parties must disclose any information or material facts which either support or undermine their case. 14.1.1. This rule is needed in judicial review claims, where the Court’s role is to review the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies, often on an urgent request being made, where the ordinary rules of disclosure of documents do not apply (see paragraph 6.5 and chapter 20 of this Guide on evidence) and where the witness statements are usually read (rather than being subject to cross examination by witnesses who are called to give their evidence orally). …14.1.3. The Court will take seriously any failure or suspected failure to comply with the duty of candour. The parties or their representatives may be required to explain why information or evidence was not disclosed to the Court, and any failure may result in sanctions.14.1.5. The duty of candour is a continuing duty. The claimant must reassess the viability and propriety of a challenge in light of the defendant’s acknowledgement of service and summary grounds.”13.These duties apply not only to claimants but to public authorities who are defendants since it will often be the case that the authority under challenge has access to information and materials which are unavailable, or may even be unknown, to the claimant. The absence of a general requirement to provide disclosure should not encourage a public authority to consider that it can adopt a less rigorous approach than a claimant, or to redact relevant material, and thus not ensuring that an accurate account of the facts is presented to the Court. See the comments of Singh J. (as he then was) in