Pre-action disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal

This Overview sets out considerations for practitioners to consider prior to the commencement of proceedings in seeking the early disclosure of documents either as a pre-action disclosure application or under a Norwich Pharmacal route.

Prospective parties may:

  1. be required to give disclosure under the appropriate pre-action protocol, see Practice Note: The pre-action protocols and when they apply

  2. wish to apply to the court for an order for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16—see below

  3. wish to apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order—see below

The guidance within this topic also includes the following which may be relevant:

  1. Practice Notes:

    1. Disclosure by a non-party—Rule 31.17—which looks at third party disclosure under CPR 31.17 and 31.18, ie obtaining disclosure of documents from a third party or non-party to the proceedings pre-action or post issue

    2. Use of confidential information in civil proceedings—which considers confidential information including what it is, who it belongs to and how to protect it

    3. Dispute resolution—data protection and GDPR considerations—which looks at the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents