In order to deliver a personalised, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your computer. By continuing to use this site and access its features, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
To find out more about the way Informa Law uses cookies please go to our Cookie Policy page. Close

Abela and ors v Hammonds Suddards and ors Ch D 2 December; Lawtel 9 December

Litigation Letter

Abela and ors v Hammonds Suddards and ors Ch D 2 December; Lawtel 9 December

Recognition has to be given to the potential value of electronic searches in identifying important documents which might otherwise be missed. Nevertheless, what was generally required under standard disclosure was a reasonable search. The rule did not require that no stone should be left unturned and the court, not the disclosing solicitor, was ultimately the decision-maker as to what was reasonable in the circumstances, Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless Plc [2008] EWHC 2522 (Ch) applied. The width of the search of electronic records for which the claimant contended was potentially very onerous and not reasonable. However, some form of search was to be undertaken, and counsel were invited to make further submissions on the question of how electronic disclosure was to be approached.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more