A v B [2019] EWHC 2089 (Ch) (25 July 2019)

A v B [2019] EWHC 2089 (Ch) (25 July 2019)

Claimant-led inspection of imaged digital data following an SSO is not the default and must be justified on the facts. In both cases, the court found that the claimants were better placed to identify relevant material, there were concerns about the defendants' ability or willingness to conduct proper disclosure, and urgency or prior agreement justified claimant-led review, subject to safeguards for privilege and confidentiality.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2089 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B; Claimants: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Schneider Electric IT Corporation and others; Defendants: Manchester Technology Data (Holdings) Ltd & ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Applications Arising From Search and Seizure Orders (ssos) on Return Dates / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Inspection of Imaged Digital Data
Outcome
Applications granted in both cases: claimants permitted to inspect imaged data, subject to safeguards.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure Orders, Disclosure, Preservation of Evidence, Inspection of Digital Data, Privilege and Confidentiality
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Confidential Information Search and Seizure Orders Disclosure Preservation of Evidence Inspection of Digital Data Privilege and Confidentiality

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Schneider Electric IT Corporation and others

Claimants

Manchester Technology Data (Holdings) Ltd & ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Applications Arising From Search and Seizure Orders (ssos) on Return Dates / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Inspection of Imaged Digital Data

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is entitled to inspect and interrogate imaged digital data first after execution of a search and seizure order: the claimant or the defendant?
  2. 2 What is the proper procedure for inspection of imaged data under an SSO, considering privilege, confidentiality, and relevance?

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant-led inspection of imaged digital data following an SSO is not the default and must be justified on the facts. In both cases, the court found that the claimants were better placed to identify relevant material, there were concerns about the defendants' ability or willingness to conduct proper disclosure, and urgency or prior agreement justified claimant-led review, subject to safeguards for privilege and confidentiality.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in both cases: claimants permitted to inspect imaged data, subject to safeguards.

Orders

  • Claimants allowed to review imaged digital material for relevant documents, after defendants' solicitors review for privilege/confidentiality.
  • Defendants to be informed of proposed search keywords and may raise objections.