Irrelevant parts of documents required to be disclosed may be blanked out on discovery by the party giving discovery. Hoffmann LJ: ‘It has long been the practice that a party is entitled to seal up or cover up parts of a document which he claims to be irrelevant’, and after citing Jones v Andrews, ‘In my view, the test for whether on discovery part of a document can be withheld on grounds of irrelevance is simply whether that part is irrelevant’.
Judges:
Hoffmann LJ, Legatt LJ
Citations:
Gazette 12-Oct-1994, Independent 02-Sep-1994, Times 03-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 172
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jones v Andrews 1888
Where a party to proceedings gives his list of documents supported by his oath, discovery is conclusive, Cotton LJ said that: ‘unless the court can be satisfied – not on a conflict of affidavits, but either from the documents produced or from . .
Cited by:
Cited – Paddick v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Dec-2003
The defendant sought disclosure of full statements used by the claimant . Extracts only had been supplied, and he said they contained private and confidential material.
Held: The application failed. The claimant had stated that the balance of . .
Cited – Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones ChD 14-Feb-2006
The defendant solicitors were being sued for professional negligence. The claimants had taken legal advice after termination of the retainer which led to the present action, and sought to rely upon part of counsel’s opinion. The defendants sought . .
Cited – Brennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80777