This is a good write up of the HMRC v IGE USA Investments Ltd and Ors  EWHC 1716 (Ch) by Parham Kouchikali and Sinead Westaway from RPC.
Now I won’t repeat the details of the case which are covered very well in the article, but in terms of disclosure there are a few key points I would like to highlight:
- The original disclosure was made under Model D under the Practice Direction 51U (PD 51U) – the Disclosure Pilot. There was then an amendment to the Particulars of Claim, for which followed a specific disclosure application was made for specific disclosure of certain documents. This was rejected in the first instance and this case was the result of an appeal to the High Court on this issue.
- The appeal dealt with two questions:
- Are Issues for Disclosure limited to issues which can be identified within the statements of case?
- Are "Issues for Disclosure" and "List of Issues for Disclosure" distinct concepts?
The article sets out in detail the responses to both of these, but ultimately the High Court reversed the initial decision and allowed the application for specific disclosure.
As the authors note: “The decision provides clarification as to the Court's jurisdiction to vary orders for Extended Disclosure. It also confirms that where parties have yet to agree a List of Issues for Disclosure, it will not prevent the Court making an order to vary a pre-existing order for Extended Disclosure.”
We’re doing a report about the DPS right now and I look forward to sharing this with you all very soon. It will certainly shed some more light around the most used models and, indeed how the DPS is going down with senior legal professionals.
Watch this space..
The Pilot Scheme is still only a pilot, having only commenced on 1 January 2019. Therefore, there is little authority on the relevant provisions. In recognising that this was an important point in the context of a relatively new procedural model, Deputy Master Nurse granted permission to appeal to the High Court and in doing so, noted that the lack of reported authority on the application of paragraph 18 was a compelling reason.(9) The decision provides clarification as to the Court's jurisdiction to vary orders for Extended Disclosure. It also confirms that where parties have yet to agree a List of Issues for Disclosure, it will not prevent the Court making an order to vary a pre-existing order for Extended Disclosure.