Applications for pre-action disclosure — not such a high hurdle after all
The Court of Appeal has given clarification on the threshold that an applicant must meet in order to obtain pre-action disclosure.
Under rule 31.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may make an order for pre-action disclosure only where: the applicant and respondent are likely to be the parties to subsequent proceedings; and the documents sought by the applicant would be covered by standard disclosure in subsequent proceedings (together the ‘jurisdictional threshold’) and pre-action disclosure is desirable for fairness, to assist in avoiding proceedings, or to save costs (‘discretionary test’).
In the case of Smith v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Control  EWCA Civ 1585, the applicant had worked for the National Coal Board for 30 years, spending many of those years in a noisy underground environment. He believed that he had suffered noise-induced hearing loss as a result…
Click on the link below to read the rest of Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The most likely option is the use of EC-approved Model Contracts
Court finds EC’s decisions to grant marketing authorisations for two generic products were consistent with legal provision.