HT-2022-000352 - [2024] EWHC 1890 (TCC)

The first issue before me relates to the search terms to be used to identify sources of data to be extracted.

The Claimant has put forward a number of search terms covering a number of developments. One such term is “Barrier Park”, which reflects the fact that the blocks of flats which are the subject of these actions were within the Barrier Park East development.

The Defendants wish an additional search term to be deployed, namely “Project Ashby”. The reason for this is that, as set out above, the programme of investigations and remedial works concerning the Defendants’ structural designs, was conducted under that name.

It is the Claimant’s position that this search term would be likely to substantially increase the number of documents to be disclosed causing unnecessary, but considerable, expense. Unnecessary, because any relevant documents would, it submits, be caught by the “Barrier Park” search.

The Defendants submit that the use of AI disclosure software will substantially reduce the amount of duplication which would have occurred without the use of such software.

In my judgment, the additional search term is likely to produce additional work for a relatively limited return. I have considered the issues identified in the DRD, which are generally (and properly) directed primarily at the Barrier Park development.

The general Project Ashby documentation will be relevant, for example as explaining why the Claimant chose to carry out remedial work which, on the Defendants’ case, it was not legally liable to carry out. There are other issues. However, I would expect those to be revealed by the Barrier Park search term.

If, however, such documentation as relevant board minutes, or communications between Barratt and the Government, are not revealed, their absence will be pretty obvious, and can be the subject of correspondence and, if necessary, applications for specific disclosure.

Accordingly, I decline to order the use of the additional search term.