![]() ![]() ![]() It was also common ground that the defendants had the right to redact irrelevant and confidential information in accordance with para 16 of CPR 51U:ġ6.1 A party may redact a part or parts of a document on the ground that the redacted data comprises data that is. It was common ground that the defendants had an obligation to carry out search-based extended disclosure and that this exercise was to be done by reference to the Issues for Disclosure. The disclosure orders were made on 26 June 2020 under CPR PD 51U. The application was brought in the context of allegations made by Privatbank that the first and second defendants orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate around US $2 billion from the bank. It will be important for a party seeking to apply redactions that a detailed and clear explanation is provided for the basis on which they have been undertaken. For this reason, parties may not have good grounds to redact information about a broader commercial relationship in circumstances where that relationship is relevant to the issues in the proceedings. ![]() This may be a broader test than whether the information is irrelevant to the list of issues for disclosure. The case is a helpful reminder that once a document has been identified as relevant for disclosure, confidential information can only be redacted if it is “ irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings”. The Claimants submitted that the redactions were unjustified and sought an order that certain messages be disclosed unredacted. In JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and others EWHC 868 (Ch), the High Court considered the approach taken by the first defendant’s solicitors when redacting over 6,000 WhatsApp messages. Where a generic explanation is given to a large number of redactions, this may invite greater scrutiny from the court and can result in costly and time-consuming disputes between the parties over disclosure obligations. ![]() Parties should provide a clear and specific explanation of the reasons why information has been redacted.Parties should therefore think carefully about applying broad redactions to “unrelated commercial transactions and other commercial information” in circumstances where evidence of the wider commercial relationship between the parties may have relevance beyond the specific transaction in dispute. The court may adopt greater vigilance where documents are heavily redacted to ensure that there is a proper basis to apply redactions.While the court identifies the need for proportionality in conducting a search for relevant documents, once a document has been identified for disclosure, different considerations apply to whether there are justifiable grounds to apply redactions.The question of whether the information is “ irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings” is a broader test. This case is an important reminder that, while parties giving disclosure have the ability to redact irrelevant confidential information, the test for relevance should not be limited to whether the information is relevant in accordance with the issues for disclosure. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |