Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad& Ors [2025] EWHC 2608 (Comm) (13 October 2025)

Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad& Ors [2025] EWHC 2608 (Comm) (13 October 2025)

The claimant failed to show that varying the DRD was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings or that her privacy rights outweighed the need for disclosure. The documents are directly relevant to pleaded issues and must be disclosed, but additional protective measures for inspection are justified to address confidentiality concerns.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2608 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Rana Al-Aggad; First Defendant: Talal Al-Aggad; Second Defendant: Tarek Al-Aggad; Third Defendant: Lama Al-Aggad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Case Management Conference—application to Vary Disclosure Order
Outcome
Application to vary the DRD refused; application to withhold disclosure refused; limited protective measures for inspection granted.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Confidentiality, Human Rights (article 8 Echr), Case Management, Proportionality in Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Confidentiality Human Rights (article 8 Echr) Case Management Proportionality in Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rana Al-Aggad

Claimant

Talal Al-Aggad

First Defendant

Tarek Al-Aggad

Second Defendant

Lama Al-Aggad

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Case Management Conference—application to Vary Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disclosure review document (DRD) should be varied to exclude certain confidential documents from disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's privacy and confidentiality rights justify withholding disclosure or limiting inspection of documents
  3. 3 Whether the documents in question are sufficiently relevant to the pleaded issues to require disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to show that varying the DRD was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings or that her privacy rights outweighed the need for disclosure. The documents are directly relevant to pleaded issues and must be disclosed, but additional protective measures for inspection are justified to address confidentiality concerns.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the DRD refused; application to withhold disclosure refused; limited protective measures for inspection granted.

Orders

  • Claimant's application to amend the DRD to exclude the documents is refused.
  • Claimant's application to withhold disclosure of the documents is refused.