WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP

WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP

The court found that, due to the large volume of redactions, the instructions to take a broad approach to commercial sensitivity, and the iterative changes made during review, there were sufficient grounds to challenge the correctness of the redactions. Therefore, it was just to exercise the court's discretion to inspect the original documents. The inspection revealed that most redactions were proper, but some required modification for consistency and intelligibility. The process justified a partial costs order against E20.

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 for Review of Redactions in Disclosure
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Redaction, Legal Privilege, Relevance of Evidence, Good Faith in Contracts
Civil Procedure Contract Law Disclosure Redaction Legal Privilege Relevance of Evidence Good Faith in Contracts

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 9
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 for Review of Redactions in Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redactions made by E20 Stadium LLP to disclosed documents on grounds of irrelevance and commercial sensitivity were properly made under CPR 31.19(5)
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its power to inspect the original unredacted documents
  3. 3 The scope of relevance for disclosure in the context of the dispute over stadium seating capacity and related financial information

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, due to the large volume of redactions, the instructions to take a broad approach to commercial sensitivity, and the iterative changes made during review, there were sufficient grounds to challenge the correctness of the redactions. Therefore, it was just to exercise the court's discretion to inspect the original documents. The inspection revealed that most redactions were proper, but some required modification for consistency and intelligibility. The process justified a partial costs order against E20.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • The court inspected the sample of redacted documents and required limited modifications or removal of certain redactions for consistency and intelligibility.
  • E20 was ordered to conduct a final review of the remaining challenged documents for relevance and consistency, supervised by Mr. Sargent.