Key Facts
- •Application and cross-application for further disclosure regarding payments to Sonergy and service providers.
- •First and second defendants' disclosure process involved review of approximately 6,000 documents not previously reviewed, with a third undergoing manual review.
- •Claimants argued for further disclosure based on the use of TAR (Technology Assisted Review) and the identification of additional potentially relevant documents.
- •Previous application for further disclosure was withdrawn by the claimants in September.
- •The court considered whether the defendants' original disclosure was sufficient and whether a material change in circumstances justified further disclosure.
Legal Principles
The court must determine whether further disclosure is necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings.
CPR
A party's withdrawal of a previous application can be considered evidence of satisfaction with the existing disclosure.
Case law (implied)
Outcomes
The court refused the application for further disclosure.
The court found that the defendants had undertaken a thorough review process, including manual review of a significant portion of the documents. The court considered that the claimants' previous withdrawal of a similar application indicated satisfaction with the initial disclosure. The court also found that the identification of additional potentially relevant documents through different search terms did not constitute a material change in circumstances.