header-logo header-logo

Limits to personal disclosure

03 February 2021
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-detail
Disclosure requirements can extend to work-related emails and messages on an employee’s personal phone or other device, the Court of Appeal has held.

The case, Phones4U v EE & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 116, concerned questions about the jurisdiction and discretion of the court regarding CPR Part 31 disclosure, where senior officers, employees and ex-employees may have used personal electronic devices for work-related emails and messages.

It arose in the course of a competition claim brought by Phones4U (now in administration) against other mobile network operators. The High Court ordered seven of the defendants to write to individual employees and ex-employees asking them to allow consultants hired by another defendant to search their personal devices and emails for material relevant to the case. The consultants were not to disclose any non-relevant material to the defendants, and should return the devices and emails to the individuals and delete any copies. The individuals could refuse the request.

However, the defendants questioned whether the judge had jurisdiction to order a party to request third-party custodians voluntarily to produce personal devices and emails. They asked whether the judge was justified in including a rider in his judgment but not in his order that the defendants ought not to tell the individuals that they could refuse the request.

They challenged whether the use of the consultants was appropriate and proportionate. Finally, Vodafone raised an additional argument about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said there was ‘no jurisdictional impediment’ to the judge’s order and it was appropriate and proportionate. He dismissed the GDPR argument but agreed the judge should not have suggested in a rider what was not in his judgment.

Sir Geoffrey said: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the present case concerns an alleged unlawful agreement, which by its nature is likely to be covert. It is obvious, as the judge pointed out, that, where companies do engage in unlawful, collusive behaviour, the individuals involved may sometimes deliberately avoid using their work email or work devices so as to conceal their dealings.’

Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll