KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 2930 (KB)

The Research Team

The previous evidence relating to the Research Team, its engagement by and activities on behalf of the Claimants is set out in [209]-[217] in the judgment that followed the Second CMH ([2025] EWHC 1716 (KB) (“the July Judgment”)).

At the November 2024 Case Management Hearing, the Claimants’ Costs Budget sought significant provision for the costs of the Research Team. I was told by Mr Sherborne that:

“[The Research Team’s] role is in identifying witnesses, identifying individual journalists, private investigators who will give evidence in support of the generic case. That is one of very important roles that they perform. … They are specialists as former journalists, two of them, and been involved… in this litigation for many years”.

“What their specialism is, … is dealing with the disclosure, dealing with the documents, what the significance of documents are and their experience is based on something like 13 years’ involvement in this litigation, involved in the Mirror Group litigation and the News Group litigation”.

At the recent hearing, I set out for consideration by the Claimants my attempt to describe the Research Team and its activities. I proposed the following:

“The Research Team has been engaged by the Claimants to provide assistance in the litigation. For that they are remunerated. They are not legally qualified, so they are not providing any legal advice or engaging in the conduct of the litigation. They have been engaged because of their specialist knowledge and experience of unlawful information gathering in newspapers, at least in part gained through their own investigations. As part of those investigations, they have obtained, in whatever role, evidence relevant to the claims of UIG. In their capacity as members of the Research Team they have provided at least some of that evidence to the Claimants in these proceedings”.

Following the hearing, the Claimants’ solicitors sent an email saying that the final two sentences “do not accurately reflect the Claimants’ position”. They suggested that the final two sentences should be replaced with the following:

“As part of those pre-engagement investigations, the members of what became the Research Team, obtained evidence relevant to the claims of UIG. Prior to their engagement they provided that evidence to the Claimants in these proceedings. After their engagement they provided all evidence of UIG obtained by their researches to the Claimants”.

This revised wording largely reflects, and is informed by, the Claimants’ position on whether documents held by the Research Team are within the Claimants’ control (which is the question to be resolved in this judgment). I am satisfied that my description of the Research Team is accurate. I am not persuaded that it is accurate to say that “prior to their engagement [the Research Team] provided that evidence to the Claimants”. It is clear, from the evidence that has been provided by the Claimants, that only some of the material held by the Research Team was provided to the Claimants at that stage (see [29]-[33] below).

Order made at the Second CMH

At the Second CMH, I determined Associated’s Application seeking an order that the Claimants should confirm that all disclosable documents obtained or created by the Research Team, that fell within the terms of standard disclosure, had been disclosed by the Claimants. The Application is dealt with in Section 12(c) of the July Judgment. I was given a broad assurance by the Claimants at the hearing that documents held by the Research Team were in the Claimants’ control and therefore subject to the Claimants’ disclosure obligations (see [225]-[226]). I found that (1) the disclosure provided by the Claimants had failed to deal adequately with documents held by the Research Team; and (2) it appeared highly likely that members of the Research Team did hold documents that fell within the Claimants’ standard disclosure obligations, and which had not yet been disclosed: [230]. I made clear what was required [232]:

“On this issue, there needs to be clarity. I shall therefore order that a further search is carried out of documents held by the Research Team and a further list be provided of documents that fall within standard disclosure. The Claimants must also file a witness statement that confirms what I was told on instructions at the hearing: that the nature of the engagement of the Research Team means that documents held by the Research Team are within their control for the purposes of disclosure in these proceedings. If there are any ‘complications’, as Mr Sherborne put it (and he mentioned an ‘agency agreement’ by which the Research Team has been engaged), this witness statement will be the opportunity for the Claimants to explain them. There must be complete transparency about the status of documents held by the Research Team. Mr White KC submitted that it would be wrong for the Research Team to hold documents in a way that means they do not fall to be disclosed by the Claimants, but from which the Claimants can nevertheless ‘cherry-pick’ as and when they judge it to be advantageous. Mr Sherborne accepted this. The orders that I shall make will ensure that a proper search will be made of documents held by the Research Team and appropriate disclosure made as a result”.

Included within the Order made consequent upon the Second CMH were the following paragraphs (“the Research Team Order”):

“(14)

By 4pm on 1 August 2025, the Claimants must file and serve evidence, by witness statement(s) made by the solicitor(s) with conduct of these proceedings on their behalf, and approved by a partner at each firm representing the Claimants, which

(a)

confirms (if it be the case) what the Court was told on instructions at the hearing that the nature of the engagement of the Research Team means that documents held by the Research Team are within the Claimants’ control for the purposes of disclosure in these proceedings or (if what the Court was told is not accurate) provides a full explanation of why documents held by the Research Team are not within the Claimants’ control for the purposes of disclosure in these proceedings; and

(b)

provides a full account of the approach taken by the Claimants to the search for and disclosure of documents in the possession or control of all members of the Research Team and any claimed limitations or restrictions on such searches and disclosure.

Paragraph 19 of the same Order also directed Sir Simon Hughes to:

“(a)

search for, and insofar as not already disclosed, disclose and produce for inspection all documents evidencing the information provided at or in advance of or following (i) the meeting in or around early April 2016 that was arranged between him and Dr Evan Harris and Mr Graham Johnson; and (ii) the meetings referred to at §22(a)(i) and §22(b)(ii) of the Reply in relation to his alleged Personal Watershed Moment; and

(b)

search for, and insofar as not already disclosed, disclose and produce for inspection all documents that explain, evidence or refer to the “Mail business” referred to in the email from Dr Evan Harris to the Fifth Claimant, dated 3 March 2016, in connection with the meeting arranged in or around early April 2016…”

Purported compliance with the Research Team Order: the Second Witness Statement of Mark Thomson

In purported compliance with Paragraph 14 of the Research Team Order, the Claimants filed a witness statement of Mark Thomson (his second), dated 8 August 2025. In this statement, provided on behalf of all Claimants, Mr Thomson confirmed that his statement was made following several meetings and telephone calls with the members of the Research Team, the members of which are Dr Evan Harris, Graham Johnson and Dan Waddell.

Mr Thomson explained the background of the three members of the Research Team.

As to the documents held by the Research Team, in summary Mr Thomson confirmed that they came from four broad sources:

In a departure from what the Court was told, on instructions, at the Second CMH, Mr Thomson stated not all documents currently held by the Research Team are within the Claimants’ control. He sought to draw a distinction between documents received and held by the Research Team in their capacity as individuals engaged as part of the Research Team for the current litigation (which it was accepted were within the Claimants’ control) and documents from their previous or other roles (which Mr Thomson maintained was not within the Claimants’ control).

In his Second Witness Statement, Mr Thomson also provided an explanation of the disclosure searches carried out in relation to documents held by the Research Team. It appears, from this evidence, however, that no independent search was made of any documents held by the Research Team for the purposes of the standard disclosure exercise in March 2025. The only search made of documents held by the Research Team was one conducted by the Research Team itself in 2021, which was at a stage before they were engaged by the Claimants in April 2022.