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—for further guidance, 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 (NPO)—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

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents