WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch) (05 October 2018)

WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch) (05 October 2018)

Given the extensive and heavy redactions, the iterative changes to redactions upon review, and the lack of viable alternative mechanisms for independent review, there were sufficient grounds to challenge the correctness of E20's redactions. The court exercised its discretion to inspect the unredacted documents to ensure that only irrelevant material was redacted and that the process was consistent and did not render documents unintelligible.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: WH Holding Limited; Claimant: West Ham United Football Club Limited; Defendant: E20 Stadium LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Interlocutory Application Regarding Document Redactions
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Redaction of Documents, Legal Privilege, Contract Interpretation, Good Faith Obligations
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Redaction of Documents Legal Privilege Contract Interpretation Good Faith Obligations

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WH Holding Limited

Claimant

West Ham United Football Club Limited

Claimant

E20 Stadium LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Interlocutory Application Regarding Document Redactions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether E20's redactions of disclosed documents for irrelevance and commercial sensitivity were properly made under CPR 31.19(5)
  2. 2 Whether the court should inspect the unredacted documents to determine the appropriateness of redactions
  3. 3 The scope of relevance for disclosure in the context of commercial sensitivity and ongoing disputes

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extensive and heavy redactions, the iterative changes to redactions upon review, and the lack of viable alternative mechanisms for independent review, there were sufficient grounds to challenge the correctness of E20's redactions. The court exercised its discretion to inspect the unredacted documents to ensure that only irrelevant material was redacted and that the process was consistent and did not render documents unintelligible.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Court inspected sample unredacted documents and required limited modifications or removal of certain redactions for consistency and intelligibility.
  • E20 ordered to conduct a final review for relevance and consistency of redactions in remaining disputed documents under supervision of senior solicitor.