KB-2025-001228 - [2025] EWHC 2506 (KB)
Fecha: 01-Oct-2025
(iii): The NEC Custodians’ material
(iii): The NEC Custodians’ material
Accordingly, the only category of documents which Mr Mansfield KC advanced at the hearing related to material held by the NEC Custodians. The Claimants had made clear in correspondence that they refused to include the NEC Custodians as custodians for standard disclosure because (i) the NEC Custodians’ emails are not in the Claimants’ possession or control; and (ii) disclosure from these custodians is neither necessary nor proportionate, as any relevant documents are likely to have been sent to other custodians.
The specific groups of documents sought in the specific disclosure application were listed in Schedule 1 to the draft order appended to the application notice, save that Mr Mansfield KC modified this during the hearing by withdrawing the application in respect of those documents listed at paragraph 2.b of the draft order. The same groups of documents were sought in the alternative via the non-party disclosure application. These were listed in Schedule 2 to the draft order.
The Defendants also sought disclosure of the NEC Custodians’ personal devices.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual background
- The procedural history
- The issues on the applications
- (ii): Surveillance documents
- (iii): The NEC Custodians’ material
- The legal framework
- (ii): Documents in a party’s“control”
- (iii): Orders for non-party disclosure under CPR 31.17
- (i): Are the documents sought in the Claimants’ control?
- (ii): Are the documents sought of such relevance that disclosure of them is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings?
- (iii): Would the specific disclosure order sought be consistent with the overriding objective?
- The non-party disclosure application
- Conclusions