This Practice Note considers the List of Issues for Disclosure required when seeking Extended Disclosure under the Disclosure Scheme operating in the Business & Property Courts (B&PCs) under CPR PD 57AD. For more guidance on which disclosure rules apply to your claim, see: Which disclosure rules apply to my claim—flowchart? The requirement for identifying the ‘Issues for Disclosure’ is relevant when a party is seeking Extended Disclosure under the Disclosure Scheme. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: • Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure • Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure and Less Complex Claims The List of Issues for Disclosure is a critical document, the careful drafting of which—including collaboration with the other parties—is key to ensuring that the appropriate Extended Disclosure Model is sought and obtained from the court at the outset. Sir Geoffrey Vos, in McParland & Partners Ltd v Whitehead (a case very much on which the purpose and process of agreeing the Issues for Disclosure was considered), said: ‘The Disclosure Pilot is built on cooperation as its terms make clear (see [CPR PD 57AD, para 2.3 and

This Practice Note sets out the requirements for completing and filing the Disclosure Review Document (DRD) required when seeking Extended Disclosure under the Disclosure Scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs) under CPR PD 57AD. The Disclosure Scheme came into force on 1 October 2022 following a disclosure pilot scheme. Judgments under the pilot scheme retain relevance and are included below. What is the DRD? The DRD is the document by which the parties must identify, discuss and seek to agree the scope of any Extended Disclosure sought by way of Extended Disclosure Models C, D or E. The completed DRD is a joint document of all the parties. It must be submitted to the court in advance of the first case management conference (CMC). The DRD (including guidance notes for its completion) is found in CPR PD 57AD, Appendix 2, with further guidance at CPR PD 57AD, para 10. The guidance will not be suitable for all claims but parties are encouraged to follow the guidance unless

This Practice Note sets out the requirements for completing the Less Complex Claims Disclosure Review Document (LCCDRD) required when seeking Extended Disclosure under the Disclosure Scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs) under CPR PD 57AD. The LCCDRD is used where the claim is designated a Less Complex Claim under CPR PD 57AD, Appendix 5. To ascertain whether your claim should be designated as a Less Complex Claim, see Practice Note: Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure and Less Complex Claims. If your claim is not a Less Complex Claim, you need to complete the Disclosure Review Document (DRD), see Practice Note: Disclosure Scheme—completing and filing the Disclosure Review Document (DRD) instead. The Disclosure Scheme came into force on 1 October 2022 following a disclosure pilot scheme. Judgments under the pilot scheme retain relevance and are included below. What is the LCCDRD? The LCCDRD is provided in CPR PD 57AD, Appendix 6, with accompanying guidance notes for its completion in CPR PD 57AD, Appendix 7. See CPR PD 57AD,

This Practice Note considers costs recovery when dealing with proceedings in the Business & Property Courts to which the Disclosure Scheme operating for most cases under CPR PD 57AD applies. The Disclosure Scheme has the potential to have a significant impact on costs recoverability, particularly where a case is subject to costs management. This is especially so given that the provisions in CPR PD 57AD take precedence over any conflicting rules or practice directions, and this would include the costs management and budgeting rules. This Practice Note also sets out a timetable for provision of costs information prior to the case management conference (CMC). For guidance about the Disclosure Scheme generally, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview. Requirement to provide costs estimates at an early stage The Disclosure Scheme under CPR PD 57AD requires parties to provide an estimate of the likely costs of providing Extended Disclosure: • Disclosure Review Document (DRD)—the parties are required to provide the estimated cost of collection, processing, search, review and production of their Extended Disclosure (section 10). Where there is disagreement

This Practice Note identifies the definitions used in the Business and Property Courts’ (B&PCs) Disclosure Scheme under CPR PD 57AD. It also covers the core principles of the Disclosure Scheme, including the duties of both parties to proceedings and their legal representatives, as well as what is meant by having control of documents. For most cases proceeding in the B&PCs disclosure is carried out pursuant to the Disclosure Scheme set out in CPR PD 57AD. For guidance on when the Disclosure Scheme applies (and the exceptions to it), see: • Practice Note: Disclosure Scheme—when and where it applies • Which disclosure rules apply to my claim—flowchart? The Disclosure Scheme came into force on 1 October 2022 following a disclosure pilot scheme. Judgments under the pilot scheme retain relevance and are included below. Note: following a survey launched online by the Disclosure Review Working Group (DRWG) to assess the operation of CPR PD 57AD and the impact of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and artificial intelligence tools on disclosure, the DRWG confirmed on 8 May

This Practice Note considers compliance with disclosure orders and obligations under the Disclosure Scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs) under CPR PD 57AD. It includes guidance on providing the Disclosure Certificate and process for giving Extended Disclosure (if ordered) and production of disclosure documents under the Disclosure Scheme (including withholding and redacting documents, confidentiality and inadvertent production) as well as guidance on failure to comply with disclosure orders and obligations. The Disclosure Scheme came into force on 1 October 2022 following a disclosure pilot scheme. Judgments under the pilot scheme retain relevance and are included below. Note: unfortunately, the way in which CPR PD 57AD is set out means that there is not necessarily full coherence in the ordering of provisions as they relate to disclosure generally under the Disclosure Scheme and those provisions which relate to Extended Disclosure only. The below therefore provides context for those provisions which are exclusively relevant to Extended Disclosure orders, as well as those which apply more generally. What guidance is there in

This Practice Note sets out a selection of illustrative cases regarding the Disclosure Scheme operating under CPR PD 57AD in the Business and Property Courts, with particular focus on decisions dated from 1 January 2026 onwards. For guidance on illustrative decisions dated prior to 2026, see Practice Note: Disclosure Scheme—key and illustrative decisions [Archived]. It provides a demonstration of the diverse range of factual scenarios and issues that may arise under the Disclosure Scheme. References to parts of the disclosure scheme are those in operation when that particular case was decided which may have changed since. For general guidance on the disclosure scheme, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview. Case details and new analysis Principle/facts Comments California State Teachers’ Retirement System v Boohoo Group plc [2026] EWHC 1944 (Comm)14 July 2026 A second case management conference (CMC) was held in this litigation following that reported below (and at [2026] EWHC 335 (Comm)) in which further issues about disclosure were raised. Disclosure had not taken place in this litigation, being due in October 2026,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out a selection of illustrative cases regarding the Disclosure Scheme operating under CPR PD 57AD in the Business and Property Courts (including when the scheme operated as a pilot scheme between January 2019 and September 2022), with particular focus on decisions between 2019 and 2025. It provides a demonstration of the diverse range of factual scenarios and issues that may arise under the Disclosure Scheme. References to parts of the disclosure scheme are those in operation when that particular case was decided which may have changed since. For guidance on the disclosure scheme, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview. Case details and new analysis Principle/facts Comments The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Beko Poland Manufacturing sp. z o.o [2025] EWHC 3276 (KB)9 December 2025 This case links disclosure to the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process and the court was asked to consider whether ADR should take place before disclosure.The court treated what

This Practice Note considers the following matters as they arise under the Disclosure Scheme in operation in the Business & Property Courts (B&PCs) set out in CPR PD 57AD: • varying an order for Extended Disclosure • seeking disclosure of specific documents • disclosure of documents mentioned in statements of case and evidence These areas overlap, not least because one of the express provisions of CPR PD 57AD, para 18 (varying Extended Disclosure) is that the court can order the disclosure of specific documents/classes of documents in response to such an application. Note also that applications under CPR PD 57AD, para 18 often are overlapped with an application in the alternative under CPR PD 57AD, para 17: failure adequately to comply with Extended Disclosure, on which see Practice Note: Disclosure Scheme—how to comply with disclosure orders and obligations. Note: disclosure of specific documents under the Disclosure Scheme is distinct from the ability to seek specific disclosure under the separate CPR 31 regime. Accordingly the below provisions apply only in relation

This Practice Note explains when and where the Disclosure Scheme in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs) (CPR PD 57AD) applies. It explains which courts apply the Disclosure Scheme (including in modified form) and which specifically exclude it. It also considers the type of claims to which it is applied or from which it is excluded. The Disclosure Scheme came into force on 1 October 2022 following a disclosure pilot scheme. Judgments under the pilot scheme retain relevance and are included below. Note: following a survey launched online by the Disclosure Review Working Group (DRWG) to assess the operation of CPR PD 57AD and the impact of Technology Assisted Review and artificial intelligence tools on disclosure, the DRWG confirmed on 8 May 2026 that the results showed that the majority of respondents did not consider the reforms in CPR PD 57AD to have been successful. Concerns were raised that the regime had led to increased costs and placed a greater burden on the courts. Other aspects such as initial disclosure and the disclosure

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers how far a court should go in requiring disclosure, notwithstanding that the court may not ultimately have jurisdiction to hear the case. The court made a number of orders for disclosure under both CPR 31.12 (specific disclosure) and 31.14 (documents referred to in statements of case and witness evidence) in the context of a jurisdiction application. The court considered that the disclosure ordered was necessary to do justice between the parties, with limits (in particular, date limitations) put on the scope of searches/disclosure in order to ensure proportionality. Redaction could also be used to avoid disclosure of personal data. The court also took into account the substantial value of the claim (US$24m), the significance of the material which was sought and the significant ‘information asymmetry’ which existed between the claimant, Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi, a wealthy Saudi Arabian customer and the defendant (against whom the disclosure order was sought), the Lebanese bank, Bank Audi SAL (the Bank). Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams.

Public Law analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has set out guidance on the circumstances in which an ‘interested party’ will be sufficiently party to litigation so as to fall under CPR 31.6 (standard disclosure) and CPR 31.12 (specific disclosure) obligations. The court did so in considering two applications (one against an interested party, and one against a non-party) for disclosure and production of certain documents. The TCC held that an ‘interested party’ may be treated as ‘party’ for the purposes of CPR 31.12 where its involvement in proceedings is sufficient, and in so doing granted specific disclosure in favour of the applicants (ie the claimants in the main dispute). The TCC, however, dismissed the application against the non-party, applying the principles of CPR 31.17(3) strictly. Written by William Moody, barrister at Henderson Chambers.