Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd
[2003] EWCA Civ 1109; [2004] 1 WLR 1479. Disclosure is to be distinguished from inspection. A party to whom a document is disclosed has a right to inspect that document except where specific exceptions apply: CPR 31.3.30.CPR 31.10 describes the procedure for standard disclosure. We need not set out the full process here. It suffices to record that a party is required to serve on every other party a list of documents which must identify the documents in a convenient order. The list must include a disclosure statement which certifies the extent of the search which has been carried out; that the signatory understands the duty to disclose documents; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge he has carried out that duty. A false disclosure statement may result in proceedings for contempt of court. By CPR 31.11, the duty of disclosure continues during the proceedings. By CPR 31.12, the court may make an order for specific disclosure.31.We do not suggest that these procedures apply in the Upper Tribunal, or even that they apply in an application for judicial review in the Administrative Court. We have made reference to these provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules in order that we might use the same terminology (documents, standard/specific disclosure, disclosure statement, and inspection) in the remainder of this judgment. To do so will avoid confusion, since it is that terminology which appears in the authorities to which we refer below. The Duty of Candour in Judicial Review Proceedings32.Neither the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 nor the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 contain obligations similar to those in the CPR. It would be erroneous to suggest that the provisions of the CPR apply in the FtT or the Upper Tribunal, which have their own rules of procedure, framed as permitted by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. That the obligations of disclosure (etc) do not apply in statutory appeals in the FtT and the Upper Tribunal is clear from
- J U D G M E N T
- Judge Blundell:
- Relevant Background
- XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran
- R (HB) v Derby City Council
- R (LS) v London Borough of Brent
- Submissions
- Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd
- Nimo (appeals: duty of disclosure)
- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd
- R v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston
- Cocks v Thanet District Council
- Quark Fishing
- explain
- R (Citizens UK) v SSHD
- R (JS) v SSHD
- R (A) v London Borough of Croydon
- R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council
- R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence
- Analysis
- R (DL) v Newham Borough Council
- (R (Houreau & Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
- R (Gardner & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors
- Tweed v Parades Commission
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)
- XX (PJAK – Facebook) Iran
- Kerr v Department for Social Development
- R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent
