REUTERS | GCS
November 24, 2020

The costs dilemma in claims against multiple defendants

While the general rule under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs, the court may make a different order. Further, the consequences of CPR 38.6 may lead to a departure from this general rule. Sometimes it is difficult to establish whether there has been a successful or unsuccessful party, especially in cases where there are multiple parties, and the possibility of a ‘Sanderson’ order or ‘Bullock’ order (see later) may arise. This was recently illustrated in the case of Oberholster v Little and another.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | GCS
November 17, 2020

Search orders in the digital age: TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others

What can be done with documents obtained by a search order? Search orders are intrusive orders, but they are often obtained under pressure and at short notice, which means that the procedural safeguards are paramount. Having developed from 1974 in the “analogue era”, to borrow Arnold LJ’s phrase, the fact that they are now being deployed in a digital environment raises the question whether the safeguards are out of date.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others draws attention to the implications of digitisation for search orders, and, in doing so, clarifies the true nature and function of a search orders as distinct from disclosure orders. It also discusses and sets out important guidance in respect of the increasingly common “imaging orders” to be followed until a standard form of imaging order is promulgated.

Continue reading →