CL-2023-000230 - [2025] EWHC 2608 (Comm)

At this case management conference, I have to consider some disclosure issues which the parties have called the “[redacted] documents application”. The claimant asks to be allowed not to disclose various documents, although they fall within the scope of a search that has previously been ordered, because they are insufficiently relevant to the case, but also confidential and sensitive. As a fall-back, the claimant asks for special limits to be placed on the manner in which the documents are disclosed.

The application traverses confidential matters, and evidence which is subject to confidentiality orders. For that reason, I heard it in private. I have found it necessary to refer to some of these matters in this judgment, of which only a redacted version (which will still be sufficiently intelligible to explain my reasons) can be released publicly. The unredacted judgment will be confidential on the terms of an order previously made, which will need to be amended accordingly.

For reasons explained below, I have ultimately decided that the DRD should not be varied, because the claimant has not satisfied me that it is “necessary for the just disposal” of this case that it should be. I have also decided that the claimant’s privacy and confidentiality rights in respect of the documents in question do not justify withholding disclosure, but that they do justify some additional protection for the documents that she discloses.