Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1824 (QB) (21 July 2016)

Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1824 (QB) (21 July 2016)

The initial non-disclosure of the Sartain email was an error, but it was corrected promptly and does not justify an independent re-review. The defendants must ensure their disclosure parameters are sufficiently broad to capture all relevant documents, but no further order is made at this stage. The relevant period...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1824
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others; Defendant: Xstrata Limited; Defendant: Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding E Disclosure
Outcome
Application for independent re-review refused; no extension of relevant period for e-disclosure; no immediate order regarding deletions or sanctions; directions for defendants to propose a plan for review of disclosure parameters.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, E Disclosure, Standard Disclosure, Document Review, Case Management
Civil Procedure Disclosure E Disclosure Standard Disclosure Document Review Case Management

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others

Claimant

Xstrata Limited

Defendant

Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding E Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' e-disclosure process was conducted in accordance with standard disclosure obligations under CPR 31.6
  2. 2 Whether an independent re-review of defendants' disclosure should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether the relevant period for e-disclosure should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The initial non-disclosure of the Sartain email was an error, but it was corrected promptly and does not justify an independent re-review. The defendants must ensure their disclosure parameters are sufficiently broad to capture all relevant documents, but no further order is made at this stage. The relevant period for e-disclosure is not extended, and no immediate order is made regarding deletions from Mr Marun's account or sanctions for delay in file server back-up tape disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application for independent re-review refused; no extension of relevant period for e-disclosure; no immediate order regarding deletions or sanctions; directions for defendants to propose a plan for review of disclosure parameters.

Orders

  • Defendants to consider the judgment and propose a plan within 14 days to ensure disclosure parameters are sufficiently broad; claimants may comment within 14 days of receipt.
  • No order for independent re-review of disclosure.