- Home
- News & Insights
- Insights
- Disclosure - What in…
25. Juli 2022
Disputes Quick Read – 45 von 103 Insights
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
- Briefing
Redacting information in documents subject to disclosure has always been a slightly contentious issue. Parties – in the midst of a dispute – have to trust that redactions have been applied appropriately based on the counterparty's solicitor's assurance.
Historically, the rules around redacting parts of documents - by way of withholding inspection - did not get much focus. It had a passing reference in CPR 31 and its accompanying practice direction (31APD.6) but there was little specific guidance to its application.
The Disclosure Pilot Scheme (DPS) – which has recently been approved and will come into force as Practice Direction 57AD on 1 October 2022 – includes an express rule (PD51U.16):
"16. Redaction
16.1 A party may redact a part or parts of a document on the ground that the redacted data comprises data that is—
(1) irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings, and confidential; or
(2) privileged.
16.2 Any redaction must be accompanied by an explanation of the basis on which it has been undertaken and confirmation, where a legal representative has conduct of litigation for the redacting party, that the redaction has been reviewed by a legal representative with control of the disclosure process. A party wishing to challenge the redaction of data must apply to the court by application notice supported where necessary by a witness statement."
The DPS does not change the test in relation to what can be redacted but clarifies and codifies the position.
In summary: a party can redact a document or part thereof if it is irrelevant and confidential or it is privileged.
Privileged information can always be redacted, but for irrelevant information it is a two stage test. The first requirement is that the information proposed to be redacted must be “irrelevant” to the issues in the proceedings. Only if it is irrelevant does the second consideration of whether the information is confidential arise. If both apply, the information can be redacted and the information withheld from the other parties. Parties should be prepared to explain the basis on which redactions have been applied and therefore the decision making process should be recorded.
Crucially the test to determine whether information can be redacted turns on its relevance to issues in the proceedings, and not the list of issues for disclosure – which are likely to be narrower.
This point was recently reiterated by Mr Justice Trower's judgment in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and others [2022] EWHC 868 (Ch).
The judgment followed the Claimant's application for further orders in relation to the First Defendant's disclosure of 26 chains of heavily redacted WhatsApp messages. The Claimant submitted that the redactions were unjustified and sought an order that 17 of the chains be disclosed to its solicitors unredacted.
Due to the heavy redactions, and in light of there being limited other sources of documents from the First Defendant, the court followed WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch) and despite the statement from solicitors felt justified in adopting greater vigilance to ensure that the right to redact was not being abused or too liberally interpreted.
When the WhatsApp messages were first disclosed a large proportion had been redacted or partially redacted on the basis that they were irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings, and confidential in line with PD51U.16.1(1). Crucially, the solicitors did not provide an explanation for each redaction but relied on a blanket explanation that the messages were "information about unrelated commercial transactions and other commercial information unrelated to the issues in these proceedings."
Following correspondence between the parties, the First Defendant's solicitors agreed to un-redact a small tranche of the WhatsApp messages stating that they accepted that it was "at least arguable that they may be relevant to the issues for disclosure". Adding, however, that they considered them unlikely to be of any particular significance to the issues in dispute in the proceedings.
Given these statements the judge found that the First Defendant's solicitors had adopted an approach to relevance which was too narrow. The solicitors should have assessed the application of redactions against all the issues in the proceedings and not just the Issues for Disclosure as appeared to be the case here.
The Judge was not convinced to order that the First Defendant disclose all the WhatsApp messages in unredacted form as sought by the Claimant. Instead, he ordered a re-review of the redactions of all the WhatsApp messages disclosed by the First Defendant "having regard both to the need to assess them against all of the issues in the proceedings and not just the Issues for Disclosure".
The Judge ordered that the solicitors should also provide an accompanying schedule for each redaction detailing: the names of the recipient, the date and time of the message and a generic description of the subject matter of the exchange. Despite that potentially being a time-consuming task, it was reasonable and proportionate given the First Defendant's limited disclosure from his own sources and given the nature and complexity of the case.
The judgment and subsequent order emphasises the importance of taking a balanced approach to redactions in the first instance by considering relevance in relation to all issues in the proceedings. Further, it is a reminder to adequately record the decision making process for each redaction, rather than rely on a blanket statement for groups of redactions.
In dieser Serie
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
21. Oktober 2025
von mehreren Autoren
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11. Juni 2025
von Ryan Ferry, Edwina Kelly
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30. Januar 2025
von Katie Chandler
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22. Januar 2025
von mehreren Autoren
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6. Dezember 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
Non-Disclosure Agreements - updated guidance from the SRA
8. November 2024
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30. Oktober 2024
von mehreren Autoren
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15. Oktober 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
Important environmental ruling?
16. Juli 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
Notice of Claim: What constitutes 'reasonable detail'?
5. Juli 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21. März 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
What are the litigation trends for 2024?
1. Februar 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions
12. Februar 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14. Dezember 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13. Dezember 2023
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17. Oktober 2023
von Katie Chandler
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21. Juli 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10. Juli 2023
von Katie Chandler
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1. Juni 2023
von mehreren Autoren
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3. Mai 2023
von James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8. März 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2. März 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14. Februar 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13. Februar 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8. Februar 2023
von Jessie Prynne
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19. Januar 2023
von Georgina Jones
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3. Oktober 2022
von Gemma Broughall
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22. September 2022
von Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25. Juli 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27. Juli 2022
von Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29. Juli 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17. Juni 2022
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13. Juni 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26. Mai 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31. Mai 2022
von mehreren Autoren
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4. April 2022
von Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31. März 2022
von mehreren Autoren
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21. September 2021
von Matthew Caskie
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13. September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2. August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21. Juli 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15. Juli 2021
von Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26. Mai 2021
von David de Ferrars
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5. Mai 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31. März 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26. Februar 2021
von Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24. Februar 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20. Januar 2021
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12. Januar 2021
von Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23. November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16. Oktober 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23. September 2020
von Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7. Oktober 2020
von Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: government guidance for contracts impacted by COVID-19
12. Mai 2020
Disputes quick read: Mandatory changes to Statements of Truth
18. Mai 2020
von Katie Chandler
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15. April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27. April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11. März 2020
von James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17. März 2020
von Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26. Februar 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21. Februar 2020
von Andrew Howell
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning
2. Juli 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9. Juli 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21. Juli 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3. Dezember 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8. Oktober 2021
von Katie Chandler
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10. Januar 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20. Januar 2022
von Natalia Faekova
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update
8. März 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22. März 2022
von Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
Related Insights
When intelligent systems fail: a case study in AI liability and the future of commercial disputes
von Katie Chandler und Esha Marwaha
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
von mehreren Autoren