SL Claimants v Tesco Plc [2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (03 December 2019)

SL Claimants v Tesco Plc [2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (03 December 2019)

The court refused the SL Claimants' applications for broader disclosure, search of Shared File Store, and production of the Majid Note, finding them disproportionate and unnecessary under CPR PD51U. Privilege in the Majid Note was not lost as references in open court did not destroy confidentiality in the document itself. Disclosure relating to impairment issues was permitted only to the extent of proportionate searches for relevant models and documents, with further case management to determine if impairment allegations could proceed without risking trial delay.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 of the Claim Form; Claimant: Manning & Napier Fund, Inc.; Claimant: Exeter Trust Company; Defendant: Tesco PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Financial List Claim / Fourth Case Management Conference (cmc4) Pre Trial
Outcome
Applications for broader disclosure, search of Shared File Store, and production of Majid Note refused; limited disclosure relating to impairment permitted; strike-out and amendment applications adjourned pending further searches.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Privilege, Strike Out Applications, Materiality, Impairment, Accounting Practices
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure Privilege Strike Out Applications Materiality Impairment +1 more

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Persons Identified in Schedule 1 of the Claim Form

Claimant

Manning & Napier Fund, Inc.

Claimant

Exeter Trust Company

Claimant

Tesco PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Financial List Claim / Fourth Case Management Conference (cmc4) Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further specific disclosure is proportionate and necessary under CPR PD51U
  2. 2 Whether privilege in the Majid Note has been lost
  3. 3 Whether impairment allegations can be introduced at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the SL Claimants' applications for broader disclosure, search of Shared File Store, and production of the Majid Note, finding them disproportionate and unnecessary under CPR PD51U. Privilege in the Majid Note was not lost as references in open court did not destroy confidentiality in the document itself. Disclosure relating to impairment issues was permitted only to the extent of proportionate searches for relevant models and documents, with further case management to determine if impairment allegations could proceed without risking trial delay.

Court Disposition

Applications for broader disclosure, search of Shared File Store, and production of Majid Note refused; limited disclosure relating to impairment permitted; strike-out and amendment applications adjourned pending further searches.

Orders

  • Tesco to disclose outcomes and search files of specific employees as limited to Schedule 1 custodians.
  • Tesco to make proportionate searches for impairment models and related documents.