Disclosable documents meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claim and remedies Costs and funding Application—specific Evidence and disclosure Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Information Commissioner Office ICO updates UK GDPR lawful basis guidance following Data (Use and Access) Act The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has revised its guidance on lawful bases under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to align with changes brought in by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025). The refresh adds a seventh lawful basis, described as ‘recognised legitimate interest’. This covers pre-authorised purposes, such as protecting vulnerable individuals, dealing with emergencies, preventing or investigating crime, addressing national security issues, and sharing personal information to perform public functions. Notably, this basis cannot be relied upon by public authorities when handling personal information for their official functions. For more, see: ICO updates UK GDPR...

Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 1689 (QB) What was the background? This ruling addresses an application by the defendants to the libel action, News Group Newspapers Ltd and another (collectively, NGN), to strike out Mr Depp’s claim on the basis of an alleged breach of an earlier ‘unless’ order concerning disclosure. In March 2020, the court had granted several of NGN’s disclosure requests. Among these was a direction requiring disclosure of documents already produced in a US libel hearing between Mr Depp and his former wife, Amber Heard, conditional on NGN providing Mr Depp with written confirmation from Ms Heard or her solicitors that she consented to such disclosure. For more on that decision, see News Analysis: Court partly grants disclosure application in Depp case (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd). NGN subsequently supplied Mr Depp with Ms Heard’s written consent. The order then required Mr Depp, within 48 hours, to provide a witness statement verified by a statement of truth confirming...

Farnsworth v The Information Commissioner (IC) [2025] UKFTT 670 (GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision serves as a clear prompt for anyone managing information requests to scrutinise the applicability and breadth of exemptions under EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, or FIOA 2000 where relevant. Erewash Council (the Council) treated the request as falling within EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391 and examined the exemptions in regulation 14. Initially, it considered relying on sub-paragraphs (a) and (e), but ultimately invoked sub-paragraph (d), covering ‘material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data’. Given that EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391 derives from European treaties to which the UK is a party, the judge stressed that such instruments must be read in good faith, according to their ordinary meaning, in context and in light of their purposes. That context embraces preambles, annexes, and later agreements between parties on interpretation. Consequently, the judge concluded that EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391 should be construed in line...

Privilege—the basic principles This Practice Note sets out several of the issues that general privilege principles create for IP practitioners, together with specific statutory IP privilege provisions to keep in view. For broader guidance on privilege as a whole, see: Privilege and without prejudice communications—overview. Privilege exists because a client and a lawyer need to communicate frankly about protecting the client’s interests, without those conversations being disclosable to an opposing party or to the court. Although the following are not the only species of privilege, the two principal forms to focus on in the IP sphere are ‘legal advice privilege’ and ‘litigation privilege’. The rules governing each, as developed through case law, can operate with very different practical effects, and their consequences may diverge considerably. These two forms are sometimes grouped together as ‘legal professional privilege’, yet that phrasing is confusingly close to ‘legal advice privilege’ and will therefore not be used again in this note. Appreciating the differences between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege is of...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts An appeal was brought before the General Court against the Commission decision of 29 October 2013 denying AXA Versicherung AG access to parts of the Commission’s administrative file concerning the 'Car glass cartel' inquiry. AXA seeks these papers to support a damages claim it is pursuing before a national (German) court. Outline On 7 July 2015, the General Court set aside the Commission’s decision in part, but only insofar as it concerned access to a limited subset of the documentation requested. Any EU citizen, or any natural or legal person living in a Member State (or with its registered office there), enjoys a right of access to documents held by the EU’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, regardless of medium or format. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (the 'Transparency Regulation') lays...

This Practice Note examines the closed material procedure (CMP) under CPR 82, by which the state may present material sensitive to national security to a judge without revealing it to opposing parties. It further explains how to apply to withhold such national security sensitive material pursuant to CPR 82.13. The closed material procedure (CMP)—evolution and rationale The state has long protected matters touching national security by asserting public interest immunity (PII), shielding related information and documents—see Practice Note: Public interest immunity. Where a PII claim succeeded, national security-sensitive material remained concealed, as the documents were withheld from everyone and excluded entirely from the issues before the court, having no influence on the dispute. Yet the state could not rely on them either, because the PII certificate kept them out of the case. If, on the other hand, a PII claim failed, the documents became disclosable to all litigants. The state then faced a stark dilemma: either discontinue the proceedings or release the sensitive documents. Accordingly, those documents would...