HT-2022-000132 - [2025] EWHC 1058 (TCC)

This was Mr Hossain’s next category of documents and the relevant lines were 4, 7, 14, 17 and 19. I have already addressed lines 14 and 19 above and it seems to me that lines 4, 7 and 17 are more conveniently addressed in the context of the arguments relating to disclosure issue D35. However, I make some further observations about inconsistent redactions at this point.

The claimants make the short point that discrepancies in redactions were not identified by the level 1 reviewers or by the higher level BCLP core team and it is submitted that it cannot be said that a reasonable solicitor would have done so. At a high level, they say that, if HL could not carry out a consistent redaction, they are expecting a higher standard of review from the receiving party than they have been able to carry out themselves.

The claimants point out, firstly, to the fact that the documents were disclosed without metadata so that cross-comparison could not easily be carried out. Multiple reviewers might consider the same document focussing on different disclosure issues. In any event, in documents say 100 pages long, a reviewer could not be expected to recall, say, the redactions on 4 pages and note that there was inconsistency. The core team would have a single document referred to them and be told that multiple versions existed so they would not be in a position to carry out that comparison.

There is considerable merit in all of those submissions but, in my view, there is no overarching approach to be taken to the inconsistent redactions. As I have said, if a version of a document contained privileged advice and there was the possibility that this disclosure was unintentional, the reasonable course would have been to check at least one other version. If there was consistency that would support the view that the disclosure was deliberate. If there was inconsistency, it would point the other way.