A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 11 April 2017
Eaglesham v MOD  EWHC 3011
Solicitors should take heed of this recent case in which the Defence was struck out in a claim valued at £6 – 8M because the Defendant failed to comply with an unless order on disclosure.
In 2013 the Claimant issued a claim against the MOD arising from the treatment he received for Q Fever, which he contracted whilst serving in Afghanistan. Following issue by the Claimant of an application for specific disclosure, the MOD agreed to an order that it provide further disclosure by 18 September 2015. However, the MOD failed to comply, and eight months later – in May 2016 - it applied for an extension of time to 21 October 2016.
At a hearing on 5 July 2016 the extension was granted on unless terms. The Judge hearing that application was assured by the MOD's evidence that its disclosure plan was accurate and the extension sought was realistic (to include the time required for ministerial review of material which may be subject to a claim for Public Interest Immunity).
One day before expiry of the unless order deadline, the MOD applied for a further extension, for a variety of reasons: more documents had been located than anticipated, technical problems had been encountered and its resources were limited. Mrs Justice Andrews found that the technical problems were not the MOD's fault, but neither were they the major cause of the delay. She was unimpressed with the MOD's position: the MOD was aware that it needed to look at significantly more documents by early September 2016, and was critical of its failure to alert the Claimant's solicitors and the Court to its difficulties at that stage. The Judge criticised the MOD's original approach to searching for electronic documents which omitted to use search terms which were obviously likely to throw up relevant material. The volume of documents should have been foreseen, and - save for the technical issues - the difficulties encountered were within the MOD's control.
Taking into account the serious breach of an unless order, without reasonable excuse, and the delay which would be caused in the claim if the application was granted, the Judge refused the extension. A liability judgment was entered against the MOD, with quantum to be assessed.
The cost of the MOD's disclosure mistakes in this case should serve as a real wake up call to litigators. The volume of electronic disclosure which the MOD had to deal with in Eaglesham was not particularly large, but it appears the disclosure exercise was not appropriately planned or resourced.
Well before the (first) CMC, lawyers need to be armed with the right information so that they are best placed to propose suitable disclosure directions, and cogently articulate to other parties and the Court why they are appropriate. This should result in a disclosure timetable which is achievable, so there is no need for a subsequent extension of time. Alternatively, it should provide good evidence that disclosure was appropriately considered at outset, and that the difficulties subsequently encountered could not reasonably have been foreseen, so that any application for an extension of time subsequently required is seen to be reasonable. Some practical points to consider include the following:
+44 (0)113 251 4775
+44 (0)113 251 4793
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6900
Emma Fuller, Jade Batstone, Daniel Miller
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
Charlotte Le Maire
Andrés Amunátegui Echeverría, Sascha Stullenberg
Peter Allchorne, David Williams
Richard Highley, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Mark Roach, Rebecca Austin
David Williams, David Johnson
Sara May, Mark Ashley, Liam Riley
Mathew Rutter, James MacNish Porter
Clare Hughes-Williams, Tom Bedford