- Court of Appeal confirms that search of non-parties’ electronic devices for relevant documents is within scope of CPR 31.5 (Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The jurisdiction issue
- The rider
- Data protection
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the order of Mr Justice Roth, by which he had directed certain defendants to write to their employees/former employees/agents in order to request that those parties voluntarily provide mobile phones and other electronic devices to third party consultants so that a disclosure search could be carried out in relation to those devices. The court’s jurisdiction to make such an order arose out of CPR 31.5(8). There was nothing disproportionate in making such an order, and it did not interfere with the third-party device holders’ Article 8 rights or violate data protection law. Written by Christopher Snell, barrister, at New Square Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial